Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed.

Standing Orders (Private Business)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): In moving the amendments to Standing Orders, I am happy to be able to reassure the House that they are not as formidable as they look. They are all of a technical or drafting nature. The amendments to Standing Orders 156B, 220 and 221 are consequential on changes in the law made by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. The amendments do no more than preserve the status quo. The other amendments to Standing Orders 39, 174 and 231 are intended to clarify or to bring up to date those orders.

Mr. Speaker: In order to save the time of the House, I shall put the six motions together.

Ordered,
That Standing Order 39 (Deposit of copies of bills at Treasury and other public departments, etc.) be amended as follows:
Line 16, leave out 'Somerset House'.

That Standing Order 156B (Clause to be inserted in Bills authorising expenditure affecting grants under enactments relating to local government) be amended as follows:
Line 9, leave out from 'for' to end of line 12 and insert.
'the purpose of determining the aggregate amount of rate support grants under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland, as the case may be'.
That Standing Order 174 (Time and manner of taking private business) be amended as follows:
Line 15, after 'motion', insert
'(other than a notice of motion in the name of the Chairman of Ways and Means)'.
Line 29, leave out from 'down' to end of line 32 and insert
'shall be distributed as nearly as may be proportionately between days allotted to the business of supply and other days on which government business has precedence'.
That Standing Order 220 (Greater London Council (Money) Bills) be amended as follows:
Line 2, leave out '29' and insert '29A'.
Line 5, leave out from 'to' to end of line 6 and insert
'borrowing and lending by the Council and prescribed expenditure of the Council'.
Line 70, at end add:
'(3) In this Order and Standing Order 221 (Limitation of power of committees on Greater London Council (Money) Bills) references to prescribed expenditure of the Council are to be construed in accordance with paragraphs 25A, 25B and 29A of Schedule 2 to the London Government Act 1963'.
That Standing Order 221 (Limitation of powers of committees on Greater London Council (Money) Bills) be amended as follows:
Line 4, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 5 and insert 'the London Transport Executive or any of their wholly-owned subsidiaries any power involving prescribed expenditure of the Council'.
That Standing Order 231 (Presentation of petition for Bill under section 1(4) of the Procedure Act) be amended as follows:
Line 2, leave out from 'which' to end of line 3 and insert
'a representation under section 1(4) of the Procedure Act would be required'.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Ordered,
That the said amendments be printed.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

Rosyth Dockyard (Safety)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the general safety provisions at Her Majesty's dockyard, Rosyth.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Keith Speed): The safety arrangements at Her Majesty's naval base, Rosyth, are subject to regular inspections and I am satisfied that in general they are satisfactory. Shortcomings in the procedures for the control of a radioactive source in the health physics department and some minor weaknesses in other areas have, however, been identified and are being corrected.

Mr. Douglas: Does the Minister recognise that he needs to be rather more forthcoming to the House and to those outside on this and other aspects of safety? Will he consider asking the Health and Safety Executive to conduct a review of safety and security at the base?

Mr. Speed: The Health and Safety Executive's accident prevention advisory unit has recently completed an independent and wide-ranging review of the dockyards to assess both their health and their safety performance. The inspectors have visited Rosyth and I expect their report very soon. I understand that they have not identified any major weaknesses or shortcomings.

Sir Frederick Burden: Is my hon. Friend fully satisfied that the same conditions have been examined at Chatham dockyard, that there is no cause for any alarm, and that the regulations are absolutely perfect?

Mr. Speed: I am never satisfied that regulations are absolutely perfect. However, I can confirm that the Health and Safety Executive is carrying out, or has carried out, a similar survey at Chatham dockyard. I shall be studying its report in due course. Again, I understand that there are no major weaknesses. I do not wish to be complacent about Chatham, Rosyth or any other dockyard.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is there any danger from the radioactive unit that went missing recently? Has it been replaced in the dockyard and is the apparatus operating normally, as it was formerly?

Mr. Speed: We believe that there is no danger, but until we really know where the missing unit is, that is difficult to say. We believe that it is still inside the dockyard, in the inner core, but we really do not know. The only danger would be if it were very close to a person outside. We believe that on the whole that is not now a danger. Other sources are being used in the dockyard for test purposes and they are now under strict regulation and control in the light of the findings of the recent review.

Mr. George Robertson: Is not the story of the missing isotope a remarkable one—that a radioactive unit can go missing for weeks in a high-security establishment? In view of the obvious and serious public concern, are not the public and the House entitled to more information and more reassurance than has presently been given in what is basically a handful of written answers?

Mr. Speed: With respect, I received the report of the board of inquiry, which is about five or six inches thick, only this week. I shall go up to Rosyth later today. I hope to reassure the public as much as I can. So far, the source has not yet been discovered. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the lessons which have been learnt from the disappearance are being taken to heart. Remedial action has already been taken by the port admiral and by the general manager.

Civil Service Dispute

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent recent defence exercises and similar activities have been affected by the dispute in the Civil Service; and whether he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott): The selective action by non-industrial civil servants has hindered some defence activities, but neither training exercises nor essential operations have been interrupted.

Mr. Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that whatever the consequences in increased disruption, his decision to send in the Navy to service the Polaris submarine "Resolution" will be supported by the vast majority of people in this country, who find it intolerable that the nation's defences should be put in jeopardy by the action of self-seeking civil servants? As the traditional loyalty of the Civil Service can no longer be relied upon, what action will my right hon. Friend take to safeguard the defence interests of this country for the future?

Mr. Nott: I assure my hon. Friend that there are no circumstances whatsoever under which we would allow the defence, including the deterrent capacities, of this country to be adversely affected in any way by such an industrial dispute. I do not wish to discuss the difficulties surrounding the dispute, but up to now they have not in any way affected operational capability in any area. I can assure my hon. Friend on that point.
Generally speaking, we can rely on the loyalty of our civil servants. I would not wish it to be felt that I do not have the highest praise for the great loyalty shown by the Civil Service to Governments of all kinds.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Is the Secretary of State seriously suggesting that the Russians may nip in while the civil servants are on strike?

Sir Frederick Burden: They nipped into Afghanistan.

Mr. Allaun: Putting aside that nonsense, would not acceptance of a 7 per cent. wage increase, when the cost of living is rising by 12·5 per cent., mean a reduction of 5·5 per cent. in the civil servants' living standards?

Mr. Nott: The people of the United Kingdom are well aware, even if the hon. Gentleman is not, that there is a great threat from the ambitions of the Soviet Union. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir F. Burden) said, the Russians nipped into Afghanistan. There was a danger that they might nip into Poland. If the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) believes that the Soviet Union will sit back while we allow our deterrent guard to slip, that belief is misconceived.

Mr. Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has said will be welcomed by responsible Members on both sides of the House and that his reaffirmation that our


deterrent will be maintained will be welcomed by many of those who are on strike? Is he aware that his affirmation of the loyalty of the Civil Service as a whole will again be welcomed by all hon. Members?

Mr. Nott: I thank my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. James Lamond: If the Secretary of State is serious in his recommendation of the loyalty of the Civil Service—if he means that, and wants to show it—why does he not approach his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and tell her that two-thirds of those civil servants receive less than the national average wage and that all they are asking is that the Government go round the table and arbitrate on the claim which has been placed before them?

Mr. Nott: When one considers the settlements being made in the private sector now, one sees that this year's offer to the Civil Service is perfectly fair and proper. On this occasion it is not for me to go into the details of the present negotiations. However, the Civil Service knows well that the Government are prepared to consider with the representatives of the civil servants the long-term arrangements for Civil Service pay. With regard to the present claim, the Government's offer is reasonable and proper in the circumstances of the economy.

Cruise Missiles

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will enter into negotiations with the United States Government with a view to increasing the extent of British control over the use of cruise missiles.

Mr. Flannery: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied as to the effectiveness of current arrangements for consultations between the United Kingdom and the United States of America before any cruise missiles deployed in the United Kingdom can be fired.

Mr. Nott: I am entirely satisfied with the existing arrangements, which have applied to United States nuclear forces based in the United Kingdom for many years. Those arrangements have been made clear to the House on several occasions.

Mr. Cryer: Do not those arrangements mean that there is no dual key system and no right of veto by the British Government over the use of cruise missiles? Does that not make the United Kingdom subordinate to American foreign and defence policy and mean that this country will be placed at risk? Is not the real position demonstrated by the reports of the resolutions of UCATT, the builders' union, for the East and West Midlands council, that it will be opposed to any work on the bases for cruise missiles, in the united determination and hostility to the missiles coming here and turning the United Kingdom into a parking lot for United States nuclear weaponry?

Mr. Nott: The House knows that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter. I assure him that no one is subordinate to anyone else. NATO is concerned with the collective defence of the West and with the maintenance of our freedoms in this country. The Soviet Union has greatly modernised its whole range of long-range theatre nuclear weapons. It is essental for the maintenance of peace that we also modernise our long-range theatre nuclear weapons. The arrangements have not changed in

any way since the end of the war, when they were agreed between the then Labour Government and the United States.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Minister accept that if he is completely satisfied with those arrangements he must be easily satisfied? He says that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is deeply worried. Has he not noticed that any demonstration against nuclear armaments now is always massive and that those demonstrations are becoming bigger? Does he not realise that a vast number of our people know that out of about 500 missiles we shall have about 170 or 180, and that there is deep feeling that the people who will decide to fire those missiles are not in this country but in the Pentagon?

Mr. Nott: I know that in the last war, before nuclear weapons were used, 50 million people died. I am also as sure as I possibly can be that the nuclear deterrent has maintained peace in Europe for the last 30 years. No Conservative Member would gamble away peace with unilateral renunciation of a deterrent which has worked.

Mr. Trippier: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that the deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom does not increase the likelihood of a nuclear attack, but decreases it? Will he reaffirm that the main aim of Her Majesty's Government is to preserve peace? Will he ensure that in all future publications which originate from his Ministry on the nuclear threat, the word "peace" is given the greatest possible emphasis?

Mr. Nott: I agree with my hon. Friend, who is exactly right. The purpose of the deterrent is to maintain peace. The idea that we have nuclear weapons with which to fight a war is an absurdity. That is not part of NATO's strategy and never has been. NATO is a defensive alliance concerned with the maintenance of peace. That is precisely what we are all concerned about in these difficult matters.

Mr. Jay: Can the Secretary of State say whether the proposed talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on the control of long-range theatre nuclear weapons will be held and, if so, when?

Mr. Nott: Talks have taken place already. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the Soviet Union was unwilling to have talks on the subject until it was assured that we were proceeding to modernise our weapons. As we are continuing with the programme for the deployment of long-range theatre nuclear weapons, I believe that the Soviet Union will wish to continue arms control negotiations, and we shall join in the process. We believe that the nuclear arms race is madness and want to stop it, but we shall not do so by unilateral renunciation of weapons that have maintained the peace.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the headquarters of the United States 3rd Air Force, which is responsible for the deployment of cruise missiles, is in my constituency, may I tell my right hon. Friend how welcome he was at Lakenheath on his visit with the United States Secretary of Defence? Does he recognise that although the United States Air Force could, with the British Government's permission, operate in time of need out of its own resources in the deployment of cruise missiles or other operational deployment, the civil servants' actions place it in particular difficulty? Will he therefore consult the United States Air Force about the problems that it could confront?

Mr. Nott: I was delighted with my most interesting visit to Lakenheath with Secretary Weinberger. Everything that we found was most encouraging. The part that the American forces play in this country is vital in the defence of freedom, and we should be grateful for it. If my hon. Friend is referring to the civil servants' disagreement over pay negotiations, I am sure that if there are problems they can be resolved. I was not aware that there were particular difficulties at Lakenheath, so perhaps my hon. Friend can send me details or speak to me later.

Mr. John: Does the Secretary of State recall that the acceptance by the European NATO powers of cruise missiles was on the specific basis that talks would take place between the United States and the Soviet Union? In view of the American Administration's remarks about detente being dead, is he satisfied that talks are being pursued with sufficient urgency—as much urgency as the deployment of cruise missiles?

Mr. Nott: At the NATO meeting in Bonn last week, Defence Ministers discussed the question, and it was reaffirmed that the deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles must proceed alongside arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. The position has not changed, but it needs two to conclude a successful negotiation. Arms control limitation and satisfactory verification will not work unless the Soviet Union is prepared to play its part.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the latest figures available for the proportion of the defence budget spent on nuclear weapons; if he will seek to reduce this proportion; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Nott: Our nuclear forces have made and are continuing to make an essential contribution to deterrence and, therefore, to peace in Europe. Over the last decade, these forces have taken up, on average, under 5 per cent. of the defence budget.

Mr. Roberts: Does the Secretary of State agree that whatever the arguments about defence expenditure, expenditure on nuclear weapons is wasteful and dangerous, as he admitted in reply to the previous question when he said that they were unusable? Because of the Polaris replacement programme and cruise missiles, does he agree that over the next few years the proportion of the budget used for nuclear weapons will rapidly increase?

Mr. Nott: That is not the case. In the peak spending period for Trident in the late 1980s it is likely to take rather more, as Trident will take about 5 per cent. of the total defence budget, but that is not greatly different from the proportion that nuclear capacity has taken in the past. I do not agree that such expenditure is wasteful or dangerous. Anything that maintains peace is welcome, and nuclear deterrence has helped to maintain peace.

Mr. Onslow: When my right hon. Friend was in Washington did he find that Americans of all parties unanimously agreed that if we went back on our decisions to acquire Trident or to allow cruise missiles to be

stationed here it would be regarded as a virtually fatal blow to the Atlantic Alliance? Does he draw any conclusions from the fact that so many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches seem anxious that we should do just that?

Mr. Nott: The widespread view in the United States and among our European allies is that when the Soviet Union is deploying one new SS20 missile per week and is far ahead of us in the modernisation of its long-range theatre nuclear weapons, to abandon the strategic independent nuclear deterrent that we have had for many years would unsettle the entire Alliance.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Secretary of State again confirm that he believes that a localised tactical nuclear war is an absurd concept? As peace depends on a balance of nuclear weapons, does he believe that peace is in the balance?

Mr. Nott: A localised tactical nuclear war is absurd. Any nuclear exchange would be madness. The purpose of nuclear deterrence is to prevent a war and not to fight one. I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends below the Gangway cannot understand that simple point. The policy has succeeded under all previous Governments. Why should we abandon it now?

Mr. Mellor: With the Labour Party's enthusiasm to reduce expenditure on atomic weapons and to increase education expenditure, does my right hon. Friend believe that it expects the Russians merely to challenge us to a game of general knowledge?

Mr. Nott: I do not know that I can entirely follow my hon. Friend on that point, but, if it is any consolation to the Opposition, let me say that had nuclear weapons never been invented we might—I emphasise "might"—be living in a safer world. However, they cannot be disinvented, and we have to deal with the situation as it exists.

Procurement

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage in terms of value of defence procurement in 1980 was made in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nott: My Department's expenditure with British industry amounted, at forecast outturn prices for 1980–81, to some £4·1 billion in 1979–80 and some £4·5 billion in 1980–81. In cash terms, it is nearly £1 billion more than the previous year. As regards equipment expenditure alone, over three-quarters went to national contracts placed with British industry in 1979–80, and I would expect it to be of the same order this year.

Mr. Foulkes: Will the right hon. Gentleman's Department give preference to goods manufactured in the United Kingdom, even if it means a little extra cost? In particular, will he consider bringing forward the orders for boots and plimsolls from Bata and including Jetstream in an earlier part of the defence programme?

Mr. Nott: I am slightly at a loss about the boots and plimsolls. If we put aside collaborative projects, which represented about 15 per cent. of equipment expenditure, we have placed only about 2 per cent. of total equipment expenditure overseas in the past few years, which is relatively slight. I will need notice of the hon. Gentleman's question about boots and plimsolls. I do not know whch ones he is referring to.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that for a country such as ours, which relies upon all-volunteer Services, it is essential to make up for the small numbers in our Armed Forces by the very highest quality of our weapons systems? Will he, in this time of recession, do his very best in the year ahead to ensure that essential weapons programmes are not diminished?

Mr. Nott: Year by year, since the Conservative Government came to office, we have been spending more with British industry, as my answer indicated. I cannot undertake that every programme now in research and development will go forward into production, because if that happened we should be bankrupt, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall do our utmost to protect and encourage the defence industrial base of this country. I can give an absolute assurance on that, because it is in the interests of all of us.

Mr. Ford: I note the Secretary of State's answer. Will he now give an assurance that he intends to maintain the development and manufacture of Sea Eagle, in which we have an absolute world lead in guidance techniques and in which some 10,000 jobs are at stake?

Mr. Nott: As I said in my statement on the current year's expenditure, we decided at that time to keep the present development programme for Sea Eagle going. That is the present position. I am well aware of its very great importance to British Aerospace dynamics. It will be considered, together with many other programmes, when we review all these equipment programmes over the next two or three months. I cannot say more than that at present.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some 650,000 people in this country are employed directly or indirectly in defence-related industries? Does he agree that it would be a major disaster if my right hon. Friend were to accede to the siren calls from the Opposition for a reduction in defence expenditure?

Mr. Nott: The answer to that is "Yes".

Dr. David Clark: With regard to Government procurement from the Royal ordnance factories and bearing in mind the fact that there have been 1,200 redundancies already this year in areas of high depression such as Birtley, Blackburn and Crewe, when may we expect the report from the study group set up to look at the work of the Royal ordnance factories, which we were led to expect would appear in February? Is the Minister aware that there is great disquiet in the ordnance factories due to uncertainty caused by delay in the appearance of the report?

Mr. Nott: The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was an internal Whitehall study of the position of the Royal ordnance factories. It is effectively prepared and ready, but I have not yet seen the final version. Until I have received and considered it, I cannot say anything about this matter. Nevertheless, I am well aware of the need to say something about the Royal ordnance factories, and indeed something about the dockyard report, as soon as we possibly can, to end uncertainty. That I undertake to do, but it cannot be for a few weeks yet.

Cyprus

Mr. Thomas Cox: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of personnel are currently stationed in the British bases on Cyprus.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): The main elements of the Army in the sovereign base areas are infantry and armoured reconnaissance units and a small Army aviation detachment. The RAF has a helicopter squadron, a field squadron of the RAF Regiment and a hospital. Both Services also have headquarters, communications and support units.

Mr. Cox: I note that reply, but is the Minister aware that the continuation of these bases, whatever the agreements may be, depends upon the good will of the Government and people of Cyprus? Will he therefore give a firm assurance that the bases will not be used in any role involving the rapid deployment force, about which we hear so much from the Prime Minister and President Reagan?

Mr. Pattie: As my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal would be the first to tell the House, that is indeed the basis on which we continue to occupy what is, after all, sovereign territory of the United Kingdom. No official request from the United States has been received on the matter that he has raised.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is there any reason why the sovereign base areas should not be used by other NATO forces?

Mr. Pattie: At present the sovereign base areas are used entirely for British forces. As there are no NATO bases elsewhere in Cyprus there would be no movement through those bases without prior consultation with the Cyprus Government.

Mr. Christopher Price: As the commander of 9 Signal Regiment in Ayios Nicholas is one of the members of the British forces, can the Minister tell the House the exact nature of the smuggling and Customs charges that have been brought against him and are shortly to be heard at a court martial?

Mr. Pattie: I am not aware of the details of that matter. If the hon. Gentleman tables a question or writes to me about it I shall have the matter looked into.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Have not the Cyprus Government and people shown great good will towards us and our position in those bases, which are indispensable to European defence and to the whole Alliance?

Mr. Pattie: Yes, indeed, they have. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that remark.

Nuclear Weapons

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the number of accidents to date involving Royal Air Force planes carrying nuclear weapons.

Mr. Pattie: There have been no accidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons.

Mr. Price: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that on 26 July 1956 a United States B47 nuclear bomber crashed


into a nuclear igloo at Lakenheath, in Sussex? Is he really saying that although the United States Government admit to 97 nuclear accidents since they have been stockpiling nuclear weapons, the record of the British Government is so remarkable that there has not been an accident of any kind?

Mr. Pattie: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my original answer he would have heard me say that there had been no accidents involving Royal Air Force aircraft carrying nuclear weapons. He went on to ask about the United States aircraft incident at Lakenheath in 1956. That question was answered by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State for Defence on 9 November 1979, when he said that no nuclear material had been involved in that accident.

Mr. Bill Walker: In view of that answer, and bearing in mind that the Royal Air Force was the major nuclear deterrent for many years, flying round the clock, does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that there were no accidents says much for the way in which the Royal Air Force operates?

Mr. Pattie: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that.

Trident Missile

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he remains satisfied that Trident costs can be contained within the billion figure already given and that the system can be delivered on time.

Mr. Nott: As I said in the House on 3 March, last summer we put the cost of the Trident system at some £4½ billion to £5 billion. Closer estimating depends on studies still in progress and decisions not yet taken, for example, on the preceise size and characteristics of the submarine.
Subject to these final decisions, I have no reason to doubt that the system can be delivered on time.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State confirm that reports from the United States now suggest that costs are likely to rise by at least 10 per cent. and that the Americans themselves are in difficulty with their Trident programme and have not decided whether to go for a C4 or a D5? When shall we have definite statements on the type of Trident submarine that we intend to build and on when the updating of the estimates will take place?

Mr. Nott: The problems affecting the United States nuclear submarine building programme are different from the situation here. Decisions are pending in the United States about the future missile system that might be used, but they are not directly relevant to us. As our memorandum said, we are planning to go forward with a Trident I missile system. We are, of course, interested in achieving the maximum commonality with the United States, and we are considering these matters as we go along.

Mr. Churchill: As it will be at least 10 years before the British Trident system is deployed, is it not a matter of extreme concern that the British long-range theatre nuclear capability, which contributes 50 per cent. of NATO's capability in Europe, should be allowed to wither on the vine? Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the matter once again?

Mr. Nott: Because we consider the matter to be so serious we are fully supporting the deployment of cruise

missiles in this country. The Vulcan force might represent a large proportion of the long-range theatre strike force at present but I fear that beside the SS20 and the Backfire bomber, the equivalent Soviet systems, our systems are in the grossest need of modernisation. That is why we must go ahead with the cruise missile programme as soon as possible.

Mr. Newens: Is the Minister saying that the increased costs suggested in the United States will have no effect on the cost of Trident in Britain? If he is not saying that, how does he expect any increased costs in Britain to be accommodated? Will not the percentage expenditure devoted to nuclear weapons have to rise considerably above the figure postulated?

Mr. Nott: When I want to change the estimate of the cost of Trident from £5 billion I shall do so.

Production Technology

Mr. Robert Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many individuals and how many establishments, under the control of the Ministry of Defence, are engaged in production technology and related research.

Mr. Pattie: Many defence establishments, including the R and D establishments, the Royal dockyards and the Royal ordnance factories, undertake some work which might be included within the general spectrum of production technology. However, it would be difficult to identify with any precision the number of staff working directly on production technology from within the wide range of disciplines which might conceivably be applicable.

Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the statistics show that Britain is spending only one-tenth of what is being spent in the United States, compared with 10 years ago when we were spending one-fifth of that amount? Since we have dropped from second to fourth in the league table, and since the programmes adopted by General Dynamics and Lockheed in the United States are expanding all the time, is there not an urgent need to discuss this matter with the Department of Industry, with a view to something better being done?

Mr. Pattie: Yes, I agree. My hon. Friend will be reassured to know that discussions have taken place recently between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Industry and British Aerospace.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the Minister aware that the Marconi radar system factory at Bill Quay is largely under the control of the Ministry of Defence, in that it is dependent upon work on the Sea Wolf project? Will he give the workers at Bill Quay, including many of my constituents, an assurance that the Department will not go Dutch and thereby sacrifice hundreds of jobs on Tyneside?

Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has heard what the hon. Gentleman said.

Gibraltar

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has plans for further reducing the garrison in Gibraltar.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Philip Goodhart): Army force levels in Gibraltar have remained constant for a long time.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am glad to hear that? I trust that they will remain so. Does that mean that the garrison and the people of that fiercely loyal territory have a remaining and key role in the defence of the West, under the NATO umbrella?

Mr. Goodhart: That is true.

Mr. McQuarrie: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but will he confirm that, as the Navy and the RAF are part of that garrison, the present strength of the Services will be maintained so long as restrictions against the Gibraltar people are imposed?

Mr. Goodhart: The forces will remain in position. When the border is open we expect that the surveillance unit of 11 will be withdrawn. Otherwise, the detachments will remain.

Harrier Aircraft

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Defence what new co-operation is taking place with the United States Government to promote the further development of the Harrier aircraft.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is yet able to make a statement on the future of the Harrier.

Mr. Pattie: During the recent visit to the United States by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, the United States Secretary of Defence confirmed that the United States Administration supported the development and production of the Harrier AV8B and that proposals were before Congress to fund it. In the light of those discussions we are hoping to reach decisions soon on the RAF's requirement for an improved version of the Harrier.

Mr. Farr: The House will welcome that. What prospect is there of producing the supersonic VTOL aircraft by the mid-1990s?

Mr. Pattie: I hope that it will be possible, when the decision to which I referred in my answer is made, to include some reference to the advanced programme.

Mr. Adley: In view of the last half century's history of exploitation by the United States of the United Kingdom's aviation technology, when my hon. Friend reaches the decision will he please give top priority to maintaining an adequate research and development capability among the highly skilled people of Britain?

Mr. Pattie: That is the importance of the advanced programme to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred.

Mr. Snape: How does the Minister compare the relative merits of the British Mark V with the United States AV8B? Does not the British version use less fuel, and have better manoeuvrability, greater speed and payload and a longer range? Is it not about time that the Government decided to do what they always say they will do, and buy British?

Mr. Pattie: Before the hon. Gentleman nails his colours too firmly to the mast he should be aware of the considerable industrial benefits that will accrue to Britain if we are part of a programme involving almost 400 orders.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Foulkes: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later today I shall have a meeting with the Prime Minister of Romania, after which I shall leave for official visits to India and countries in the Gulf.

Mr. Foulkes: Before the Prime Minister flies off to India will she take time to read the impressive and revealing document produced by journalists on The Scotsman newspaper, which shows that the Thomson organisation is putting the future of that newspaper in jeopardy by refusing to invest in the maintenance of high journalistic standards, and that it has siphoned off profits from Edinburgh for a substantial number of years?

The Prime Minister: I doubt whether I shall have time to read that before I go to India. No doubt the Thomson organisation has good reasons for doing what it is doing.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Will my right hon. Friend consider today the role that capital investment could play in helping us to overcome the recession? Is she aware that some projects in the public sector, such as the electrification of the railways, could earn commercial rates of return? Is it not possible to find a way of financing such profitable projects by private capital?

The Prime Minister: Many of us would like to devote a larger proportion of resources to capital investment, 'Out if that, too, is not to be a drain on the private sector it must be compensated for by a reduction in current expenditure. We cannot spend money on current expenditure and still have it available for capital expenditure.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady look afresh at what was said by the Home Secretary yesterday about the terms of reference of the inquiry into the Brixton disturbances? In the light of her statement yesterday that she does not consider that unemployment is a primary cause of such difficulties, does she not think that the matter should be investigated by the inquiry?

The Prime Minister: The terms of reference that my right hon. Friend announced are very wide. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard Lord Scarman on the radio at lunchtime today. I gather that he thinks that they are wide enough for everything into which he would wish to inquire to make good his duties.

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady go further, particularly as she went much further on television last night, when she was prepared to commit herself to the proposition that high unemployment was not a primary cause of such troubles? According to the reports in the Daily Mirror today—there is no need to laugh, because people should face it—half of the unemployed people between the ages of 16 and 19 in Brixton are coloured.


How does the right hon. Lady think that the country will have a chance to inquire into these matters? Will all the questions of how unemployment affects the situation really come within the scope of the Scarman inquiry?

The Prime Minister: The terms of reference give Lord Scarman sufficient scope to inquire into anything that he may wish to in connection with the riots that took place in Brixton. During my interview last night I was asked a straight question and I gave a straight answer. I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not understand it.

Mr. John MacKay: Before my right hon. Friend leaves today will she accept the congratulations of most people—except those who really play for the other side—on deciding to arm and re-store the "Resolution" by means of naval manpower?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for expressing those congratulations. The defence of this country must not be put at risk by the actions of a very small minority.

Mr. Stephen Ross: On her long flight to India, will the Prime Minister reflect on the result of last week's Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election? Does she agree that if election to Westminster had been by proportional representation the result might have been very different?

The Prime Minister: There were two candidates. The answer is "No, Sir".

Mr. Lang: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Lang: Does my right hon. Friend agree that all hon. Members will wish to congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on nominating six new Labour peers? Does she agree also that, in addition to a need to strengthen the membership of the other place, there is a need to entrench its very existence against those who might seek to undermine and destroy that vital part of our parlimentary democracy?

The Prime Minister: The Leader of the Opposition made a request that I understood. I was happy, for once, to be able to agree to one of his requests. The other place is not in any danger from Conservatives Members. Those who wish to entrench its existence, or even that of a strong Second Chamber, should vote for our continuance in office.

Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Prime Minister take time today to reflect on her views about the connection between unemployment and events in Brixton over the weekend? Is she not aware that some areas in inner London are seriously deprived, have a high incidence of unemployment and have appalling housing? Surely those factors cannot be divorced from the situation afflicting so many young blacks.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman considers that unemployment was the only cause of the riots, I disagree with him. If he considers that it was the main cause of the riots, I disagree with him. Nothing that has happened with regard to unemployment would justify those riots. Lambeth has about the largest housing investment allocation in London, amounting to about £40 million this year. A large amount—about £9 million—is being spent on the partnership scheme. In addition, about 1,200 council houses have been vacant in Lambeth for more than a year.

International Year of Disabled People

Mr. Freud: asked the Prime Minister in what way she proposes to contribute to the International Year of Disabled People.

The Prime Minister: We have paid particular attention to the needs of the disabled in the last two Budgets, putting up the mobility allowance by 65 per cent. since we came into office and doubling the tax allowance for the blind. We are taking a large number of other initiatives to mark the International Year, and I will arrange for a full list to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Freud: Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that as her contribution to the International Year of Disabled People—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] Will she give an assurance that services to the handicapped will not diminish as a result of the recession? For the sake of brevity, will she say either "Yes" or "No"?

The Prime Minister: I have just given a reply that indicates that in some respects provision has increased.

Mr. John Browne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the disabled people who work in the Enham Alamein factory in my constituency of Winchester are grateful, because they owe their entire working existence to the Government's lenient and compassionate attitude towards the survival of their factory?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. The Government were able to undertake some public purchasing deliberately to help the disabled. We were glad of the chance to do so.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that her reply is only a half or a quarter truth? Since she came into office the severely disabled have been badly hit. The Prime Minister should tell the House that supplementary benefit discretions, invalidity benefit, social services and the Manpower Services Commission's provision for the disabled have been cut. The right hon. Lady does not seem to appreciate the severity of the impact of those cuts on the disabled. Will she undertake to read some of the many letters that have been received by the voluntary organisations?

The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the amounts spent on the health services and on social security benefits he will find that they have increased in real terms. In addition, in the last Budget we were glad to be able to double the income tax allowance for the blind. That is a real gesture in this International Year of Disabled People.

Mr. McQuarrie: Before my right hon. Friend leaves on her journey—which I hope will be enjoyable and


successful—will she take time to discuss with the Home Secretary the problem of the disabled and elderly who were seriously affected by last weekend's disturbances in Brixton? Will she ensure that they are being properly looked after?

The Prime Minister: Many people in Brixton were seriously disturbed by last weekend's disorders. Almost all of them—with the exception of those involved—were delighted that the police did not withdraw but fully and bravely carried on their duty to restore law and order to the area.

Engagements

Mr. Chapman: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 14 April.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Chapman: As my right hon. Friend flies towards the Orient will she take stock of the growing feeling that our rating system is unfair, illogical, undemocratic, inadequate and out of date? At the very least, will she concede that the Government should bring forward a consultative paper giving all the possible options? In that way, a national debate could take place and perhaps a consensus could be reached about an alternative to the present iniquitous impost.

The Prime Minster: I agree with my hon. Friend's description of the rating system. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is considering the options. None of them is easy. We would consult before making any changes. I shall take into account my hon. Friend's remarks about a consultation paper.

Mr. Flannery: Will the Prime Minister turn her mind once again to the subject of unemployment? There is so much of it that her mind should be permanently on it. Does

she realise that since last week's Question Time—when there had been no fewer than five lobbies on unemployment in about five days—the great steelworks of Hadfields, in Sheffield, has announced that it is about to close? Is the right hon. Lady aware that once again there is a lobby outside the House of about one-fifth of the Hadfields' work force, who want to know what will be done about the private sector? Last December the Secretary of State for Industry told Members of Parliament for Sheffield constituencies that he would do nothing for the public sector but that he would do something for the private sector. Private sector firms are closing all over the country.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman standing up for the private sector. Perhaps we could stand up more for the private sector if we were having to spend a little less on the public sector. In the steel industry we are trying to form a number of companies into what is called Phoenix II, which is part British Steel Corporation and part private sector companies, such as Hadfields, with a view to its eventually coming into the private sector. That would be a great advance on the present situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — House of Representatives, Pennsylvania

Mr. Speaker: I have to inform the House that I have received from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania a motion that it has passed celebrating the 300th anniversary of the founding of the State of Pennsylvania and noting with pride its connections with this country.
I shall put a copy of the documents in the Library. I have written to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pennsylvania wishing that House well in the future.

American Textiles (Imports)

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take effective action against subsidised man-made fibre and textile imports from the United States and the resulting closure of the Roe Lee mill, Blackburn, with the loss of 320 jobs.
Imports of man-made fibres and products, clothing and textiles, have increased in some sectors by seven times over the past 18 months, as United States producers enjoy a wholly unjustified and unfair competitive advantage over all European producers, because of the way in which the prices of natural gas and oil are held down by regulation in the United States.
We have raised this subject repeatedly in the House. On 15 December 1980 the Minister for Trade announced that there would be negotiations, on behalf of the Government, by the EEC Commission with the United States Administration. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), the Minister said:
If the initiative fails, we have open to us a range of options under Article XIX of GATT and elsewhere. We would consider those in the light of any failure."—[Official Report, 15 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 49–50.]
In the four months that have followed it is plain that there has been a major failure and breakdown of those negotiations. Yesterday the Minister for Trade made an announcement about the failure of those negotiations. I cannot quote what was said, because Hansard was printed backwards on that page. However, I have read it in the mirror in the cloakroom outside. The Minister for Trade said that he would not take further action, despite the breakdown of those negotiations.
The importance of the matter is that the continuing failure of the Government to take effective action against United States imports is leading to a haemorrhaging of the textile and clothing industry—especially those sectors that

use man-made fibres and textiles. One example—this is a sorry tale—is the Carrington Viyella factory, in my constituency, known as the Roe Lee mill, which has announced its closure with a loss of 320 jobs. It is a double tragedy, for although the factory went on short-time working earlier in the year it went back to full-time working about a month ago. It has all the orders that it can cope with, but it cannot meet competition from the Americans on price.
Unless there is urgent Government action to halt or stem the flood of imports, the man-made fibres industry will bleed to death. Hon. Members who doubt that should be aware that there has been a 50 per cent. drop in output of man-made fibres in one year.
The time has come for firm Government action and for an end to the smooth talk and honeyed words of the Secretary of State for Trade and his colleagues. The Opposition demand that the matter should be debated forthwith.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss
the failure of Her Majesty's Government to take effective action against subsidised man-made fibre and textile imports from the United States and the resulting closure of Roe Lee mill, Blackburn, with the loss of 320 jobs.
I listened, as the House will have listened, with deep concern to what the hon. Gentleman said about the fibre industry and the textile industry in general. The House is aware that I do not decide whether this important matter is to be debated. I merely decide whether it is of such a character that it must be debated tonight or tommorow night. The House has put that restriction upon me. It has also put a further restriction on me that I do not give reasons for my decision.
I listened with care, but I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Imprisonment of Prostitutes (Abolition)

Mr. Clive Soley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to abolish the term 'common prostitute' in law; to abolish sentences of imprisonment for soliciting offences; and for connected purposes.
Prostitution is said to be the oldest profession in the world. I have always doubted that, because I thought that it vied with politics for that definition. Someone has pointed out to me that the dividing line between the two is not always clear. I am also aware that journalism is the third oldest profession, inasmuch as someone is required to spread the word. I suspect that I should not be introducing the Bill if there were more women in the House.
My Bill does two things. First, it proposes to remove the term "common prostitute" from the 1959 Act. Secondly, it proposes to abolish imprisonment as a sentence, except where fines are not paid, where the normal law applies.
The term "common prostitute" condemns a person before her case has been heard. It was well intentioned in the first instance. The phrase goes back to the Wolfenden committee's inquiries, which many hon. Members will remember better than I do. In effect, the phrase makes conviction more likely, because it means that a woman appearing in court is charged with being a common prostitute before she has pleaded guilty or not guilty to an offence, even though she may never have appeared in court in her life before. The charge is based on the assumption that a woman has been cautioned by the police prior to arrest.
I do not think that there is a similar situation under any other law. For example, if someone is warned about stealing he is not brought to court and charged with being a common thief before being convicted. The offence is unique in that respect. A male prostitute is covered by a different Act, and the term "common prostitute" is not used.
The charge of soliciting—soliciting is the offence; being a prostitute is not an offence—should stand or fall on its merits and not on a person's being described as a common prostitute before she pleads guilty or not guilty.
The purpose of the second part of the Bill is to abolish imprisonment. The reason is that it is not now regarded by many people as an appropriate sentence for soliciting on the streets. To some extent this is demonstrated by the figures. In 1978 only 214 people—214 women—were sentenced to imprisonment. The vast majority are already dealt with by fines, conditional discharges, probation, and so on.
The all-party penal affairs group in Parliament said in its report:
We recommend that any nuisance caused by soliciting should be dealt with by legislation dealing with public nuisance generally. No one should normally be convicted of such an offence without evidence having been heard from a person to whom a nuisance has been caused.
In saying that, the report puts the emphasis on the person who alleges that a nuisance has been caused. That is important, because it brings out the question of double standards. A woman soliciting for prostitution on the streets will, generally speaking, cause relatively little offence to passers-by. There are exceptions. But a man

looking for a prostitute may cause a great deal of offence. He may be kerb crawling, he may be stopping women who are not prostitutes, and so on. But he will not be charged. Even if he were, in extreme circumstances, to be charged with causing a nuisance it is extremely unlikely that he would be sent to prison.
It is, therefore, an exceptional sentence to impose on women in this position. It is interesting to note that the Police Federation, the prison governors, probation officers, social workers, lawyers and the National Council for Civil Liberties all agree that imprisonment is an inappropriate sentence in cases such as this. I can think of no better way to reconcile such diverse groups as the NCCL, the Police Federation, lawyers and others in unity than an issue of this kind.
The double standards between the customer and prostitute need to be borne in mind.
Street prostitutes often solicit for short-term economic gain, to deal with an immediate financial crisis. It might be done in order to pay the, rent or to avoid having the electricity or gas cut off. These are immediate financial crises, and we need to bear in mind that people live in a different world from that of the 1920s and 1930s. People living in a multi-storey block of flats are dependent on electricity or gas for their heating. They can no longer go out and collect wood from a nearby forest, light a fire and keep themselves warm in that way. They either have to pay their electricity and gas bills or go without lighting and heating.
It is obviously, therefore, sometimes a matter of short-term economic gain. In such circumstances people are often caught, because they solicit in the local area, where they are seen, warned and eventually arrested. It is also true that women arrested in such circumstances have multiple social, economic and emotional problems. They are not organised for their soliciting in the way that some people are.
One of the reasons why I have no fears that soliciting for prostitution would dramatically increase if the Bill were to become law is that it is possible to be a prostitute legally and not get into serious trouble. It is possible to see in shop windows advertisements for "French lessons with variations". I am not sure whether the EEC has issued any directives concerning French lessons and what is requited as a minimum standard. I am sure that if we were to carry out research in that respect: we might find one or two surprises.
Children are taken into care when a mother who is a single person is sent to prison for this offence. That, again, is not a desirable step.
My Bill sets a fine of up to £25 for a first offence and £50 for a second offence. The reasons for that are obvious. At the very least, the danger is that the women will pay the fine out of money that would otherwise be used to pay the rent, the electricity bill or the gas bill. At the very worst, she will simply go out and solicit again in order to pay the bill. I remember a case in which a woman told me that she had increased her price. When customers complained she said "You roust blame the magistrate".
My proposals will not only help the Treasury Bench to keep down inflation; they will keep people out of prison and cut public expenditure. Indeed, rumour has it that the Ministers on the Treasury Bench are fighting each other in order to get the Bill made law before the end of the


Session. I urge the hon. Members to vote for the Bill today, for reasons of natural justice and for the welfare of the community as a whole.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Matthew Parris, Mr. Charles Irving, Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk, Mr. Christopher Price, Mr. A. W. Stallard, Mr. John Wheeler, Mr. Frank Dobson, Miss Janet Fookes, and Miss Jo Richardson.

IMPRISONMENT OF PROSTITUTES (ABOLITION)

Mr. Clive Soley accordingly presented a Bill to abolish the term "common prostitute" in law; to abolish sentences of imprisonment for soliciting offences; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19 June and to be printed [Bill 118].

Transport Bill (Allocation of Time)

Mr. Albert Booth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order concerns the motion in the name of the Leader of the House and the amendment to it in the names of my hon. Friends and myself.
When the Bill left the House it did not have within it any clause relating to the subject of seat belts. It has returned from the Committee stage with such a clause—a limited clause, namely, clause 27. We have sought, through the Business Committee of the House, to reach an agreement with the Government that would enable new clause 3, which is also concerned with seat belts, to be debated within the guillotine timetable.
May I ask you for your guidance whether, in view of the change in the scope of the Bill that has occurred between its leaving the Chamber on Second Reading and coming back here, it would be in order for the House, on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself, to determine whether it wishes to consider the wider subject of seat belts in that context?

Mr. Speaker: I am unable to accept the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) because the House has instructed me that I have to put the Question forthwith, under Standing Order No. 43, and I have no choice in the matter. But if the debate is conducted in such a way that the subject is reached it will be possible for the House to discuss the matter of seat belts, which I know is of considerable interest to a large number of right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. David Ennals: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is a new clause, signed by 126 right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House. Do you not feel that the House would bring itself into disrepute if on this occasion it were not to vote one way or the other on an issue that has been before the House eight times, and on which the House has voted three times by an overwhelming majority? Would it not be to the great disadvantage of the House if it were not to vote on it, quite apart from the interests of about 500 people a year whose lives could be saved by the wearing of seat belts?

Mr. Speaker: We are now using debating time. I hope that the House will be able to reach the subject.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has made a speech that was not relevant to the motion, which should be put forthwith. There are other arguments that could be put on the subject. I could have pointed out that my right hon. Friend was a Minister for many years and did nothing about the question. Am I to be allowed to debate the fact that when these Ministers are in power they do nothing and that as soon as they leave office they want to put the world right? I could have obtained 300 signatures had I wished to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has come to my aid. I am deeply grateful. The Question is, That the report from the Business Committee be now considered.

Mr. Robert Adley: rose——

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is only holding up the business.

Mr. Adley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a procedural point. I shall not enter upon the merits of the argument about seat belts. A timetable motion for the Bill was agreed by the House. Subsequently, as the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) said, this new item appeared——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seeks to pursue a matter on which I have already ruled.

Question agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Report [6 April] from the Business Committee be now considered.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Report considered accordingly.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in their resolution put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and agreed to.

Following is the report of the Business Committee:
That—
(1) the order in which proceedings on consideration are taken shall be New Clauses, Amendments to Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 14, Schedules 2 to 4, Clauses 15 to 18, Schedules 5 and 6, Clauses 19 to 22, Schedule 7, Clauses 23 and 24, Clauses 25 to 28, Schedules 8 and 9, Clauses 29 to 35 and Schedules 10 and 11 and New Schedules;
(2) the proceedings on the day which under the Order [9 March] is allotted to consideration and Third Reading shall be divided into the parts shown in the Table set out below and, subject to the provisions of that Order, each part shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of that Table.

Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


New Clauses.
5.00 p.m.


Amendments up to the end of Schedule 1.
6.30 p.m.


Amendments up to the end of Schedule 4.
8.00 p.m.


Amendments up to the end of Schedule 6.
9.30 p.m.


Amendments up to the end of Clause 24.
11.00 p.m.


Remaining proceedings on consideration.
—


Third Reading.
1.00 a.m.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

[ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 16

Road humps

'(1) The provisions of Schedule (Road humps) have effect with respect to road humps.

(2) This section and Schedule (Road humps) come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be so appointed for different purposes.'—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This clause, together with the associated new schedule, deals with the matter of road humps—an important though minor road safety feature which the Government hope will be introduced on to appropriate roads in the reasonably near future. They are sometimes called sleeping policemen.
Road humps are raised ridges across the road designed to keep the speed of traffic down to a speed suitable for a particular road. The kind of road humps that we have in mind, being on the public highway, would be strictly controlled. Regulations would need to specify the height, dimension and signing, to make sure that no accidents were mused by motorists coming unexpectedly upon humps and no damage was caused to vehicles by unauthorised humps of a strange shape or size. The Government are satisfied, in the light of research carried out, that, on suitable minor roads, road humps can have a beneficial effect on the speed of traffic and hence on road safety. The kind of road for which they are most appropriate is the small back-street side road, often used as a short cut in rush hours, through residential areas where traffic speed ought to stay down to 30 mph. A properly constructed road hump will make sure that this happens.
There have been experiments with road humps on roads since section 17 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 empowered the Government to install them on an experimental basis. Several road humps were installed and were successful, but because the legal powers to lay them were so limited the road humps had to be dug up and removed and the road surface reinstated after the experimental period. This caused some protest. In the areas where they had been laid they tended to be popular with local residents and with motorists.
Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), whom I see in his place, introduced a Private Member's Bill that would have enabled road humps to be laid lawfully by local authorities and by the Secretary of State throughout the country. The Bill passed through all its stages in this House and had reached a late stage in another place when an amendment was moved

which this House had no time to consider. My hon. Friend was extremely unlucky not to be able to get his Bill on the statute book.
My hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate) tabled amendments in Standing Committee to achieve the same purpose. The Government accepted them and promised to bring forward on Report drafting amendments to make sure that the wording of the legislation complied with the Highways Act 1980, a consolidation measure that has arisen since my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central introduced his Bill, to make various alterations designed to satisfy some of the critics—particularly in another place—who were worried about some details last year.
The long new schedule contains the correctly drafted provisions. It also makes sure, that, unlike last year's Bill, there is no question of depressions being installled on roads. There will be only humps, elevated from the road. Humps will be installed only by local authorities on roads subject to a speed limit of 30 mph. In certain cases, approved humps can be put on private highways.
The effect of the clause will not be drastic. I do not think that many humps will be installed. Some local authorities are eager to install them in suitable places. When installed, so long as they follow the prescribed requirements that my right hon. Friend will lay down in regulations they will be treated as part of the highway and not as unlawful obstructions.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I like very much what my hon. and learned Friend proposes. Will this provision apply in Scotland?

Mr. Clarke: Yes. Part of the new schedule expressly applies the law to Scotland. It has been felt safest to set out a whole separate enactment of the schedule in terms appropriate to Scottish law. I trust that it will be as beneficial there as here. I commend the new clause.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will local authorities be liable to meet the costs, or will the Department of Transport meet the costs? I am concerned about what costs will be involved. This has not been mentioned by the Minister.

Mr. Clarke: The local authority would meet the cost of any road hump that it wanted to be installed. It would be part of the authority's ordinary transport budget. The cost of a hump is a few hundred pounds. The local authority would have to weigh up, within its transport budget priorities, whether the case for the hump was justified. No extra expenditure by the Government is contemplated.

Mr. Roger Stott: The Under-Secretary of State pointed out that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) tried to bring forward a Bill last year which fell because of a procedural wrangle. We indicated from the Opposition Benches in Committee that we had no objection to the proposals. We still have no objection. I am glad to see that the Government have removed "depressions". That was a minor point of contention.
The clause, as it stands, has the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. To facilitate progress and to enable the House to debate a more serious issue, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be brief in discussing the clause.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I intervene only briefly to express my pleasure that the Government have seen fit to bring this provision within the Bill. A great deal of time was spent last year on my Private Member's Bill, for which I had all-party support. The hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and hon. Members representing all parties supported it. Indeed, the previous Labour Administration were in favour. It was an all-party measure designed to encourage road safety.
It was a great pity that because of difficulties in another place the Bill became bogged down and I was unfortunately pipped at the post. It is good news that the Minister, with the considerable help of my hon. Friends the Members for Meriden (Mr. Mills) and for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in Committee, has brought forward this proposal.
I was startled by the response from the public, who were very much in favour of my Bill when it was going through the House and received some degree of publicity. I was invited to see experimental road humps that had been placed in roads. Residents expressed to me their delight about their effect in slowing down traffic, about improved amenities and increased safety—all factors that have been borne out statistically by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. Those people were horrified when I had to tell them that at the end of a year, unless the law were changed, the road humps would have to be dug up. This was a ridiculous state of affairs and an absurd feature of the law. I am glad that the Government have bitten on the bullet and intend to put this proposal permanently on the statute book.
The new clause will cut down noise and nuisance. It will be welcomed by residents. It is a power that local authorities should possess. They do not need to exercise the power; it is voluntary and permissive. No one is forcing the authorities to do anything. According to researches, 52 per cent. of drivers favour road humps. I am delighted that, although I am not responsible for the new clause, a small measure that I started has come to fruition.

4 pm

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) on having got part of his desires almost met.
I intervened during the Minister's speech because I wanted to know where the money was to come from. Like all Ministers, he said "Well, it is only a few hundred pounds." Of course, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned, he uses the phrase "only a few million pounds".
Local authorities are always being told "It is only a small amount. It is only a few hundred pounds". However, this is like the question of the cost of living. Almost daily, a Minister who has just returned from the Continent of Europe says from the Dispatch Box that this or that is going up in price—"but it is only 1 per cent." But why should local authorities have to meet this cost out of their local funds?
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central said that local authorities will decide whether they want to introduce humps. He said that it is voluntary. I remember the day when seat belts were a voluntary matter, but now everyone is trying to make wearing them compulsory. What happens when it becomes compulsory to have these humps? This is where the thin end of the wedge, or of the humps, comes

in. Start it gradually, bring it in voluntarily, introduce it for a few hundred pounds, and having got the councils hooked, start making it compulsory and start loading them with a lot of expense.
I do not want my council to be loaded with a lot of costs. I do not want Conservative Members who have been complaining about rates rising to have to explain to their constituents that the rates have risen again because some councils that want, for one reason or another, to put in some humps find that a few hundred pounds have to be found.

Sir Ronald Bell: It is not just the cost that will rise. The hon. Member might reflect that it could be the humps that rise, too, because as people get used to the idea they will want them higher and higher in order to make the traffic in their neighbourhood slower and slower.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman, rightly as always, is well on the ball—or well on the hump. Perhaps he will go into more detail on that aspect. I do not want to delay the House in any way. I merely wanted to deal with the question of the cost. I am concerned about costs.
When the Government are introducing legislation which will cost the taxpayer money, either directly through the national Exchequer or indirectly through local rates, I do not mind whether they do it in such a way that Members can get at them on the Floor of the House. I am then happy about it. [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh, but a number of local authorities are, as we know, prolific spenders. They can spend money like water. We then find that the ratepayer has to pay.

Mr. Anthony Grant: There is something called local elections. If a local authority were outrageous in its expenditure on road humps, which is very hard to conceive, the remedy of the electors would be in their own hands. It would be to change the local authority.

Mr. Lewis: Like me, the hon. Gentleman is very old in the tooth, and he very well knows that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) once said, a week is a long time in politics. We all know that what happens today is often forgotten tomorrow. One cannot expect local people to remember that the hump from which they have been suffering for 10 days, 10 weeks or 10 months is all due to the actions of the local authority. The point is that this could not happen but for the Government. My point is that I want to stop the Government doing this and to stop the House giving them the right to do it, unless the Government pay the full costs.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the beginning of his speech. That is my loss, because I do not know what he said.
There is a lot to be said in favour of road humps. However, now that we are in the EEC I should have thought that this was the sort of issue on which individual member States would be very unwise to make their own decisions as to how they should go forward. I should have thought that it would be sensible to wait until Brussels has made a decision about the sort of humps that we should have throughout the Community, so that we do not have to to go forward and spend this money, about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned. Let us wait until we have a decision from Brussels and we can all do the same thing.

Mr. Lewis: I do not know whether I should be in order in dealing with that matter, Mr. Speaker. I suppose that it would be in order, because it concerns the hump. I am surprised at the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I have no confidence in the Common Market. He appears to have confidence in it. The present Government waste money, but there is no possibility of their wasting money to the same extent as the Common Market wastes it. If we left this matter to the Common Market we would have a far greater waste of money and far more expenditure than would be necessary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Getleman's instinct at the beginning was a good one. If I were him, I should leave the Common Market and return to English, Welsh and Scottish humps.

Mr. Lewis: I am not so sure, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you about the first matter, but I am not sure whether I should not ask the Minister a further question about the cost. If, as he says, local authorities would have to pay these few hundred pounds—we all know that the few hundred pounds will turn into a few thousand pounds and eventually a few thousand pounds will turn into a few hundred thousand pounds—should we not ask the Common Market for subsidies?
That is a point that I had not thought of previously. It could well be in order. If my local authority wanted to get the hump, or to put up humps, would it be in order in asking the Common Market to help with the costs? If that were so I might consider supporting the proposition—because any money that I can get out of the Common Market, I am happy to get, in any way possible. However, I am not sure that local authorities will be able to do this. I think that what would happen would be that the local authorities would have to pay. If the Minister is all in favour of this proposition he ought to say "I shall see to it that we shall meet the costs from the Exchequer."

Mr. Matthew Parris: Is it not more likely that under some potential future common hump policy our taxpayers would end up paying for the construction of humps across the Channel?

Mr. Lewis: I think that Mr. Speaker would have the hump if I developed that point too far. I shall speak to the hon. Member outside later. He has a point. The cost is said to be only a few hundred pounds. I am making a serious point.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: You do not have a serious point in your head.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Such remarks are addressed to me, and that is a little exaggeration. Being Welsh, I am accustomed to exaggeration, so we shall let the matter pass.

Mr. Lewis: I would not dare to think of accusing the Chair in such a manner.
I am worried about this matter. If the Minister would care to come with me today, tomorrow, or any day of this week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now."]. Yes, now. Within half an hour of travelling around the London boroughs he would find potholes as big as the Dispatch Box in almost every street. There are big potholes which have existed for months on end. Local authorities claim that they cannot afford to put matters right because they do not have the necessary money. These potholes are dangerous to the blind, the sick and the disabled, and they are dangerous

to motorists. I am not talking about the question of the control of the boroughs, or whether it is Westminster, Islington or Lambeth. In all of these boroughs, as I have seen myself, there are huge potholes. If we are to have safety measures—I agree that we need safety measures—surely these potholes ought to be repaired. The Minister has done nothing about that matter.

Mr. Marlow: I am sorry to intervene again, but the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, did not answer my question. If we were to go ahead and build our own road humps, is there not a risk that we should have to replace them later with a Eurohump? The money would be spent twice.

Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman should take up the matter with Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker is in the Chair. As the hon. Member knows, Mr. Speaker is never wrong, and he has ruled that I cannot deal with the matter. I assure the hon. Gentleman that, much as he thinks he is right, the occupant of the Chair can never be wrong, just as he can never be silly or stupid.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to accept that motion at this stage.

Mr. Lewis: I cannot deal with the issue raised by the hon. Member for Northampton, North because Mr. Speaker said that it would not be in order for me to do so. I can discuss the matter with the hon. Gentleman later—perhaps in the Lobby, or even in the bar where we could have a few drinks and become inebriated. We could not do that in the House. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not deal with the matter now.
We must watch public expenditure and ensure that it is cut to the bone. I sound like the Prime Minister or the Government. I have been listening too much to the Government and their supporters talking about cuts in public expenditure. The Government must do something to reimburse local authorities on a 100 per cent. basis. Otherwise councils will not build road humps. If road humps are not built, the local inhabitants will be unable to do anything about it—other than perhaps throwing the council out at the next election. I hope that the Minister will say that as the sum involved is only a few hundred pounds he will guarantee that the Treasury will foot the bill.

Mr. Iain Mills: I am grateful to be called, Mr. Speaker, because it is important to make some procedural and detailed points about the new clause on road humps.
I congratulate the Under-Secretary on taking an unusually short time. That should be recognised, in view of the undercurrents in connection with the new clauses and the possibility of discussing new clauses later I note also the extremely short time taken—most honourably—by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott). That underlines the fact that both sides of the House want a short discussion on the matter today.
I moved the amendment on road humps in Committee and I believe—perhaps supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), who discussed road humps in endless detail on previous occasions—that those who are knowledgeable about road humps are happy


to accept the Government's dictates and changes. That is demonstrated by the fact that we have had the shortest speeches for a long time on both sides of the House. There is absolute agreement, therefore, that road humps in the form presented today are acceptable. Any further detailed debate that is not reckoned to be substantial to the nature of the clauses can be interpreted by people inside and outside the House only as delaying the measures that will allow further new clauses to be debated later.

Mr. Peter Fry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rarely raise a point of order, but on this occasion I feel that the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) are such as to inhibit discussion on this important clause. I seek your guidance, and hope that those of us who want to debate road humps will not be browbeaten or prevented from putting forward our points of view.

Mr. Speaker: This debate did not start until about 3.50 pm. That is enough of an answer about an early decision on any question of a closure.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) is wrong. The Chair never limits debate when it believes that there has not been adequate debate. There is never a chance of debate being restricted, because the Chair ensures that we get fair play. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but in the interests of fair play I am interrupting him so that I may call the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills).

Sir Ronald Bell: rose——

Mr. Mills: I shall not give way. I shall be brief, and I have no intention of being discourteous to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I hold him in considerable regard, and I believe that what he said is important. I accept what he says about public expenditure. I was not talking about his speech; I was saying that it would be a shame if the debate on road humps were to inhibit further discussion on measures which other right hon. and hon. Members feel are important. Perhaps I may be forgiven for saying that in Committee the pressures put on those Members were considerable. I do not wish to inhibit the House by saying that I agree with the Government's decision on the amendments originally tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central and myself in Committee. They have taken away the depression from road humps. That might lighten the lives of some hon. Members, and even reduce any feeling that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West might have that public money could be spent on depressions instead of humps. Thus, any expenditure on road humps would be positive.
Restriction to the 30 mph limit is in line with the guarantee that the Government gave in Committee. It is therefore welcome to those who believe that the road humps new clause is a small but serious measure.
I conclude by apologising—if apologies are needed—to any right hon. or hon. Member for my earlier remarks. However, I sincerely and earnestly believe that road

humps have now reached a satisfactory conclusion, and it would greatly benefit the reputation of the House and right hon. and hon. Members if we were to allow this debate not to preclude any further discussion on other important issues.

Mr. Sheerman: In Committee I put my name to the amendment on road humps. Local authorities are not forced to have road humps, but they are able to introduce them if they so wish, after a complicated procedure. The Secretary of State will have to consent to the scheme.
I accept that hon. Members have every right to discuss amendments and that we must remember that there are many amendments to discuss before 5 o'clock. There is a difference between genuine concern about road humps and the genuine concern that is felt by Members on both sides of the House that the behaviour of certain hon. Members, even though within the letter of the rules of the House, brings the House into disrepute because of the tactics being used. The road humps debate is being used to try to stop the majority of the House from having its say on issues that are important to the nation.

Mr. Fry: That surely is what the Opposition are always trying to do—stop the majority of Members from having their say. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Opposition do not have a valid point to make? Surely any point of view, even though it is a minority point of view, is entitled to be put.

Mr. Sheerman: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. However, we know that some things are within the letter of our rules, some things are within the spirit of our rules, and some things are dishonest in any institution, and bring the House into disrepute. I believe that some hon. Members are now doing that.

Mr. Robert Adley: I shall be brief. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant). I had the pleasure of serving on the Committee that considered his Bill. He will agree that the House owes a debt to Mr. Chris Heaps, who was one of the prime movers behind the proposal and motivated some of us to do something about it.
There are some questions to which I would appreciate answers from my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary. I support the new clause, which is a small but important measure, which gives people some control over their own environment. I understand that one of the main differences between the proposals before us and those in the original Bill dealing with road humps is that the current proposals restrict the construction of humps to roads on which there is a 30 mph limit. That is a pity, because humps would be relevant on many country roads.
On the vexed question of highway authorities, I moved an amendment to the original Bill to give district councils as well as county councils the right to initiate the process of creating road humps. The amendment was rejected, but will my hon. and learned Friend consider, in the powers that he is taking in the Bill, direct representations to him from district councils as well as from county councils?
Will my hon. and learned Friend also tell us whether he is prepared to consider representations from local groups who may be prepared to finance the construction of road humps in their localities? There are many instances where small groups of local people would be willing to do


that, because they would consider the cost involved a small price to pay for the improvement of their environment.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) mentioned the 30 mph limit. Great problems are caused in my constituency by roads that run through villages that are not long enough to be approved for speed limits of 40 mph or 30 mph. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary will remember that road humps could be used as a means of enforcing speed reduction in such villages.
What guidance will be provided to local authorities from the Transport and Road Research Laboratory? As far as I can see, there is nothing that lays down what sort of hump will be relevant to what sort of speed level. Will my hon. and learned Friend ensure that guidance is provided, and will he place the greatest emphasis on road humps in terms of speed enforcement?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: As I may not have the opportunity to reply to the debate, may I point out, on the fundamental point raised by my hon. Friend, that the nature of the road humps—the size, signing, location, and so on—will be tightly controlled by regulations? The new schedule that is a substantive part of the road humps provision includes a regulation-making power.
There can be no question of having endless local variations, or not controlling their size, and so on. All the TRRL's experience will be reflected in the regulations and the only humps that will be lawful will be those that comply with the detailed regulations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will provide.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful for that intervention, but is my hon. and learned Friend giving consideration to experimenting with road humps to enforce a 40 mph speed limit as well as a 30 mph limit? Will he also consider road humps as the answer to the problem facing villagers that cannot get speeds limits, for whatever reason? Humps would slow traffic to the point where residents do not continually have to cross the road in peril of their lives, as is the case in Woolhampton, in my constituency, because they are unable to get a speed limit from the county council or the Department.

Mr. Fry: I am a member of the RAC's public policy committee, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) introduced his Bill I may have caused him slight annoyance by objecting. I should make it clear that I do not object to the principle of road humps, but the RAC and I feel that it raises important questions of public expenditure.
We do not have a limitless amount of money. Local budgets are severely restricted. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) raised an interesting and important point about local groups financing the construction of road humps. Most of us know that the areas to which road humps are ideally suited are residential estates that are used as short cuts by traffic that races through with no regard for the safety of young children. That is a particular problem on open-plan estates, where there are no fences to keep the children in.
There is such an estate at Irchester, in my constituency. Last weekend I received a deputation from residents who were anxious to have road humps constructed at the

entrance to the estate. I had to explain that the Bill was not yet law and that there was an added difficulty because the county council had to find the necessary finance.
I am satisfied that residents of many estates would have no difficulty in raising money to provide road humps. They cannot take the decision on their own, because it is important to have a standard form of road hump and we cannot allow those that will cause more accidents than they prevent, but I hope that the Government have not closed their mind to the idea that there should be an injection of private capital, if I may use that phrase to my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary, because that would be in the interests of those who will be most affected.
I hope that we shall not have to wait for individual local authorities to make up their minds, because much could be done by local people in the cause of road safety.

Mr. Adley: As the Government encourage that principle in the NHS, would not the Department of Transport be well advised to follow that example?

Mr. Fry: Indeed. I would take it a step further and use the analogy of preventive medicine.
The ideal time to consider the provision of humps is when the outline of a new estate is being discussed with a developer. Consultation could take place at that early stage, and that might stop the development of estates where many parents are fearful for their children's future.
On many new estates there are often few children in the early years. It is only after two or three years that children come along, and therefore thought is not always given to road humps as a road safety measure when estates are being planned.
I support the new clause, but the proposal needs more thought and more impetus, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State needs to embrace the political philosophy that we are trying to extend in other areas.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's comments about private capital, and I should like him to go into more detail on that. Is he suggesting that we should appeal to the financiers and entrepreneurs of the City of London? Is the money to come from local residents? Many of my constituents are going to prison because they cannot pay their present rates. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be easy to operate on an estate, but does he propose that in other areas someone should go round with a hat to each resident?

Mr. Fry: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but the point that I was trying to make was that where a road hump was not likely to be provided, because of shortage of cash, local residents could club together if they wished. I further tried to point out that perhaps the developer of a new estate should bear the cost of providing road humps. I accept that there are areas where the local residents could not finance the cost, and in those circumstances it would be the responsibility of the local authority.
I put all these points with great seriousness to my hon. and learned Friend, and I hope that he will reply to them before this debate is concluded.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I noted the speed with which my hon. and learned Friend introduced this measure and the speed with which the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr.


Stott) replied, and I was somewhat alarmed when my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) seemed to be saying to the House that this was a matter of sufficiently little importance for hon. Members not to be justified in debating it.

Mr. Iain Mills: Would my hon. Friend allow me to correct his misapprehension? I said that I hoped that this small but important measure would not preclude the discussion of any other new clauses, and I put forward for his attention the fact that this matter had been debated both in this House and in another place at some length.

Mr. Lawrence: I accept completely what my hon. Friend has so charmingly said to reduce the effect that his opening words might have had upon me, because I certainly felt them to be somewhat intimidating.
Although road humps may seem to some hon. Members in this Chamber to be less important than some of the other matters to which I hope that we shall come, such as the question of motor-cycle helmets, the RAC, which is one of the most responsible organised bodies, if not the most responsible one, for motorists in this country, views the question of road humps with great seriousness. For this reason, we might have thought from the speeches that we have heard so far from those who are anxious to get this road hump measure on the statute book that nobody who had spoken in favour of the new clause was actually a motorist.
Road humps, particularly if they proliferate in the sort of regions that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) was intimating they might, would be a great inconvenience to motorists. While the interests of road safety may weigh substantially in their favour, the fact that we are introducing in this House a measure which will greatly inconvenience motorists is something that we must take seriously and must consider fully.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Following that line of argument, perhaps my hon. Friend will explain why the researches of the Road Research Laboratory, where humps have been installed, revealed that no less than 52 per cent. of motorists who were polled were in favour of the humps.

Mr. Lawrence: That raises a whole new question that I would rather not go into. All I can say is that I have repeatedly driven over humps in the area in which I live and have never once been polled. If I had been, I would have said exactly what I thought of the humps that I had been over.

Sir Ronald Bell: Would my hon. Friend not consider the probability that the motorists polled were exactly those who lived in the immediate neighbourhood, because my experience, and, I imagine, that of most Members of Parliament, is that everybody wants a tight speed limit in the immediate neighbourhood of his home and no speed limits anywhere else. The same probably applies to road humps.

Mr. Lawrence: I am sure that, as so often with what my hon. and learned Friend says, that is absolutely right.

Mr. Michael Brotherton: If, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) says, 52 per cent. of the motorists polled were in favour of humps, that means that 48 per cent. were against them.

With the statistical imprecision of polls, would that not show that the result was totally insignificant and probably wrong?

Mr. Lawrence: It certainly shows that the matter is one concerning which the country is not entirely of one mind and is therefore something that we ought to consider, at any rate in a reasonably short debate, raising the matters that concern us most.

Mr. Gary Waller: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that the poll which has been referred to was in relation to some particular road humps. Motorists were asked if they were in favour of those road humps, and not necessarily road humps in general. While it is reasonable to suppose that many would favour road humps in general, if they proliferated and there were a large number of humps, some motorists might have a different view from that which they expressed in relation to the small number of road humps allowed under the experiment.

Mr. Lawrence: That raises the spectre of a number of over-enthusiastic local authorities round the country deciding that because Parliament thought road humps were so important a contribution to road safety they should put up road humps wherever the local residents complained about the traffic going along their roads. The thought that we might have in this country thousands of towns and cities and tens of thousands of villages going about the business of building road humps might raise a question in the minds of the millions of motorists who might be inconvenienced.

Mr. Adley: I know that my hon. Friend has given a great deal of thought to the question of road humps and that his mind is not on anything else in the Bill. If he is so concerned about the convenience of motorists whose views, presumably, from what he is saying, he thinks should override anyone else's, would he also agree that pedestrian crossings and traffic lights are a frightful inconvenience to motorists and that we should do nothing to look after the interests of those who live locally and might want to cross the road?

Mr. Lawrence: I do not think that it is necessary to take any argument to a logical conclusion that is absurd. I have never argued that pedestrian crossings are wrong or that we should not have them, in the interests of road safety, and I am not doing so now. I am not even arguing now that we should not have road humps. I am merely saying that the question of road humps is an important matter upon which a number of issues need to be clarified in the minds of the public. We are legislating here on behalf of the public, not on our own behalf or in accordance with our own biases or predisposed views. We are legislating for the people that we represent and I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) that many people that I represent will be greatly inconvenienced by a massive proliferation of road humps wherever they want to drive and wherever residents in a particular area feel it necessary to put them.
One of the reasons why I feel strongly about this question of road humps—I hope that my hon. Friend will give me credit for having a mind that is able to embrace not only the subject of road humps but also other matters that may arise, such as crash helmets, which I hope that


we shall come to shortly—is that I drive a car and have some friends who live in a road where road humps have been built.
One question which I think needs to be answered by my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary—because he is learned he is in a particularly good position to answer it—is exactly what powers or rights the motorist has who goes over a road hump which has been built too high, or is a little too wide, or whose dimensions in some way cause damage to his car or injury to the people who are in it.
Some of the road humps I have been over have been of a quite exaggerated size; presumably they have had the approval of somebody in the road transport section of the local authority who has said that the road humps are properly of this size and height. Exhaust systems on cars are very expensive these days and it is not always easy to avoid not only the expense but the waste of time involved in having repairs done after driving along roads with road humps which certainly hitherto have been of a rather exaggerated size.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I disagree with the hon. Member on the prnciple but I ask him to turn to something which was put to me—against my views, incidentally. The question of exhausts and their cost is perhaps not so vital, but I was told by a motor engineer that one of the great dangers—this was probably not put to the 52 per cent. of motorists in favour of humps—is that going over humps persistenly can damage the steering of a car and the person driving does not know that the steering is damaged.
Damaged steering is far more dangerous than a damaged exhaust system. If an exhaust system falls off a car, the poor owner has to foot the bill. He is more likely to knock down a child because he does not know that his steering has been damaged than because his exhaust system has been damaged. Will the hon. Gentleman develop that angle?

Mr. Lawrence: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not take long to develop it. I am grateful to him for raising it. I was about to mention other parts of a vehicle that are damaged by road humps. The modern car is a piece of delicate and expensive machinery. Many other parts may be shaken and ruptured, apart from steering and exhaust systems. The expense thereby created is substantial.
What remedy does the motorist have in circumstances in which a properly approved road hump causes damage or injury when a car is passing over it at a not excessive speed?
What are the powers of supervision of local authorities that respond to the proper concern of local residents who are worried about speeding vehicles? Very often we, as Members of Parliament, receive complaints from residents about young people on motor bikes. What supervision is expected to come from what centralised organisation to ensure that before road humps are put on any road there is a positive need for them in the interests of road safety? I foresee local councillors throughout the country saying, "If this is what the local resident wants and if he feels that we should be doing something to protect his residence, road safety in the area and the safety of children, we shall install them." That is not good enough, because it may be that the humps about which I am complaining——

Mr. Sheerman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you guide the House on the issue of Members' interests when they make speeches on matters on which their interests might bear? At the beginning of a speech should an hon. Member make a declaration of any remuneration that he receives from outside bodies that might be connected with the legislation that we are discussing? What is the rule on that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): An hon. Member would use every discretion that he has in dealing with such matters as those to which reference has been made.

Mr. Brotherton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention of this place that right hon. and hon. Members always declare any interest that they may have? Is it not possibly a slur by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) on my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to raise the issue on a point of order?

Mr. Lawrence: I do not take it as a personal slur. However, as the issue has been raised I shall deal with it. I am a paid-up member of the RAC. As such, I suppose that I have some interest in ensuring that that body's request that the issue of road humps should be properly considered—it is one on which it feels quite strongly—is carried to a sensible conclusion. That is one of my interests.
Secondly, from time to time I have the good fortune to be instructed by those who run foul of the traffic law. I suppose that it is conceivable that if there are road humps that encourage some lawbreakers to infringe the speed limit or to go against the provisions of this proposed legislation I might have some financial interest. It will not have escaped the House that the tenor of my speech is that we should be careful before we proliferate humps that will provide me with more work, In the circumstances it is difficult to conceive why the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) should think that I am speaking——

Sir Ronald Bell: Does my hon. Friend have a retainer from any particular road hump?

Mr. Lawrence: I am beset by questioners.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Has my hon. Friend considered that the passing into law of the Bill might in this respect give him less work? All researches show that accidents are reduced as a result of road humps. My hon. Friend may have an interest because he may have less work as a result.

Mr. Lawrence: If my practice were concerned with negligence or accidents there would be much merit in what my hon. Friend says. The reality is, alas, that my practice is much more modest than that.
It is concerned with the defence of those who have allegedly offended against legislation of the sort that we are proposing to introduce by means of the Bill. My hon. Friend's argument is not as good as mine. If I have a financial interest in defending anyone, I am speaking against that interest in calling for caution with road humps.
The only other matter that I ought perhaps to declare——-I normally do so and it normally bores my hon. Friends, but as I am invited to declare my interests I shall do so—is that I have the great honour to be president of the National


Association of Approved Driving Instructors. It is an honour that I have enjoyed for a number of years—indeed, ever since a former distinguished Member of this House ceased to hold the equivalent position in the organisation that existed previously. It is a position that I much enjoy holding because it brings me into contact not only with many small business men, whose interests, as the House knows, are a preoccupation of mine, but with road safety. If the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East has some devious or sinister fears about that position I assure him that it is one which I hold in honorarium. I think that I have replied to the hon. Gentleman, who believes that I may not have disclosed one of my interests. I have laid my interests bare. My overriding interest lies in road safety and good sense in considering the motorist.
I was proposing to ask my hon. and learned Friend what responsibility, what powers, and what facilities are available to ensure that the Government supervise local authorities that in an excess of zeal may be minded to protect themselves from any criticism on the ground of road safety by proliferating the introduction of road humps in many roads, whether they have speed limits of 30 mph or more.
I, too, have villages in my constituency, some of which are very lovely. I have tried hard, sometimes with success but, alas, not always, to have 30 mph speed limits imposed in these villages. A motor cyclist might hurtle through a village such as Newborough, in Staffordshire, and hit a road hump which he has not seen either because he is too bad a cyclist, because the light is out, or because the warning light is not good enough. That thought fills me with horror. It is one thing for villagers who are aware of the speed of traffic passing through to take care as they cross the road and another thing for motor cyclists to hurtle through and cause themselves sometimes the most atrocious accidents on hitting something in the road that they did not foresee.
It is a matter of concern for road safety that there should be proper and adequate supervision by a central and respected body to ensure that the type of road humps that cause such injury or damage do not proliferate throughout the country.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Who does the hon. Gentleman think will do the supervising? Will it be the Government or a Government Department? A huge Department recently carried out a census which omitted entire villages. It costs us £50 million a year to have an Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. A census is carried out once every 10 years. If Government Departments cannot do their jobs, how can the hon. Gentleman be sure that anything that this Government or any other Government do can be relied upon? Surely we could not rely on a Government to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Lawrence: I shall not be tempted to take up the line that the hon. Gentleman tempts me to take. I am anxious to come to the conclusion of my speech and to allow those of my hon. Friends who wish to speak on this subject to make their contributions.
My third point concerns the whole question of cost. It has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), who, in a distinguished other guise, represents us on the RAC. The RAC is concerned about costs, and rightly so. For many years, it has

conducted a campaign which draws to the attention of motorists the fact that although vast sums of money are levied from the motorist in taxes, little is spent on the improvement of our roads. It has been a perennial cause of concern in the House that our roads are not receiving as much money as they should for maintenance and improvement. That problem will grow increasingly as the vehicles which carry heavy cargoes cause more and more damage to the existing stock.

Mr. Brotherton: My hon. Friend is in error if he is seeking to argue that all the money raised in taxation by the motorist should be spent on the roads. Would it not be equally effective to say that all the money raised from the smoker should be spent on the smoker? It is silly to argue for hypothecated taxation. On reflection, does not my hon. Friend agree that he is wrong if he seeks to pursue that argument?

Mr. Lawrence: I am not seeking to pursue the argument on the lines along which my hon. Friend has tempted me to go. I am resisting much temptation this afternoon in the interests of getting on.
The point which my hon. Friend makes is, as always, valid, but I am making a different point. The RAC is concerned at the cost implications when "grossly inadequate"—that is its phraseology—resources for essential road construction and improvement are being denied. I do not entirely accept such criticism because I know how hard my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport are going about their business of trying to provide adequate resources for the expensive business of road maintenance.
However, the fact remains that today, on the question of road humps, we are legislating for another item which will have substantial cost implications—not only the cost of constructing the humps but the cost of modifying them when there are too many complaints and actions from local authorities. That will inevitably happen, as it has happened hitherto. There are also cost implications of insurance claims and everything else which may follow.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough rightly referred to what I know is deeply in the RAC's mind—that perhaps we should consider an opportunity for local residents who feel strongly about the need for humps to be asked to make a contribution towards their cost.

Mr. Percy Grieve: No.

Mr. Lawrence: My hon. and learned Friend says "No". He is knowledgeable about those matters.

Mr. Grieve: Surely my hon. Friend appreciates that in most of our inner cities there are rat-runs through numerous residential streets. Would not the use of road humps in such streets prevent the appalling nuisance and danger to local residents which are caused by traffic passing through at high speed?

Mr. Lawrence: I do not dissent from that. No doubt, I would be enthusiastic for some of the residents in my area to have them. However, I am saying that if the cost implications are considerable there should be some provision whereby local authorities can say to residents that if they want the road humps they can pay for them—or at any rate they can make a substantial contribution towards them so that the general fund which would otherwise be used for the construction of road humps might be used more widely for the improvement of roads


in any area. An argument may develop concerning the two sides of the interest in residential road humps. Those who do not want road humps would want some improvement in the general structure of the road in a particular area.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose——

Mr. Lawrence: I must resist the final temptation, if the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) will allow me to do so.
I have raised three important points with the Minister, not just because I say that they are important but because the RAC, which represents millions of motorists in Britain, thinks that they are important and should be discussed, and dealt with on Report. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to give some reassurance not only to me and to those whom I represent but to the many motorists who feel—as the RAC feels—that there will be much inconvenience and cost and possibly some danger in having road humps and that that must be set in the scale on the other side of the undoubted value to road safety of having such impediments enshrined in legislation.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I know that my reply cannot close the debate. I apologise to any of my right hon. and hon. Friends who are still seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. No doubt they will take advantage of any time which I leave before our timetable motion requires the debate to end.
One or two points have been raised. I shall probably leave one or two queries unanswered in the minds of the hon. Members who have spoken, most of whom have been in favour of road humps. Therefore, if our short debate leaves any doubts in the public mind, I should make clear one or two matters.
The humps will usually be installed by the highway authority. The only people empowered to construct them will be either the highway authority or the Secretary of State. In fact, the Secretary of State is unlikely to make much use of his powers, which will be used only if there is thought to be a need for further experiment in new forms of humps or new types of road. Therefore, the highway authority will install humps and in most cases that authority will be the county council.
My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) asked about the role of district councils. District councils are not highway authorities. The House would not wish to duplicate the powers of the different tiers of local government in highway matters. However, there is nothing to stop a district council putting a proposal to its county council and inviting that council to construct such a hump, ideally on the sort of road described by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) as a rat-run through a suburban area, of which a district council may be aware.
There is nothing to stop a group of local residents, such as a residents' committee, offering to put up the money for a road hump which they want. The cost is estimated to be between £700 and £800 in each case. If the county council can be persuaded to exercise the powers which we propose to give it, there is nothing to prevent it accepting a donation towards the cost of such a hump.
I shall make this point clear, as doubts have been expressed. We are not talking about a proliferation of all sorts of locally designed, irregular humps. The humps which we have in mind have been well tested by the

Transport and Road Research Laboratory. There were no proven cases of damage to vehicles arising from those humps. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) said, they were popular with motorists and residents. The motorists who responded to the questionnaire were asked where they lived. Only 3 per cent. of those responding were receiving the benefit, as local residents, from the humps on the road. No one had an accident, suffered damage or objected to the humps. Those humps were welcomed.
Regulations will be drawn up which will tightly confine the size, nature, signing, and so on of the road humps. There will be a standard pattern which can be adopted by local authorities. If they wish to adopt the pattern the local authorities will have to advertise their intention to do so and they will have to consult the local police and such other people as the regulations will prescribe. The regulations are subject to the negative procedure, but they could come before Parliament and they could be annulled by the House if any hon. Member tabled a prayer against them. Therefore, once the draft regulations are produced they will be subject to the scrutiny of the House in the usual way.
I believe that the regulations will be welcomed, as most right hon. and hon. Members have said. We are not introducing a proliferation of humps but merely an opportunity for a modest number to be put in suitable places.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) wanted to know about the position on non-30 mph limit roads. Under the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State would have power to install humps on any road, but only for experimental purposes. We do not envisage any such experiments at the moment. Local authorities would be confined to roads already subject to the 30 mph limit. I hope that that commends itself to the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said, it is all very well desiring to restrain the speed of vehicles on remote country roads or through small villages, but if a road hump were encountered on a derestricted road a serious accident could be caused if someone were travelling recklessly and fast.
I fear, therefore, that my hon. Friend's villagers and others who want speed limits will have to satisfy the highway authority that the limit is justified before the road hump can be installed to back it up.
Given those reassurances I hope that the House will agree that it is a popular and desirable measure and that the time has come to correct a long-standing anomaly.

Mr. Lawrence: Can my hon. and learned Friend answer my point about accidents and injury?

Mr. Clarke: So long as humps comply with the regulations, they will not be an unlawful obstruction in the road; they will be part of the highway. Therefore, the highway authority would be responsible for damage only——

5 pm

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am now required under the terms of the resolution to which the House agreed today to put the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

RAILWAYS BOARD'S POWERS OF DISPOSAL

Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 2, at end insert
'Subsidiary" in this subsection shall not be deemed to include British Rail Engineering Limited.'.
The object of the amendment is clear. It is to keep British Rail Engineering Ltd. strictly within the scope of British Railways and the British Railways Board and to remove the ability that the Bill would confer on the Minister to instruct the board to sell the engineering subsidiary or to prevent British Railways from seeking the consent of the Minister to sell the subsidiary.
I make it clear that British Railways has, to the best of my knowledge, at no time suggested to the Government that it would wish to dispose of BREL. The amendment is merely a fall-back if we do not succeed in defeating the Bill or at least securing a wider amendment to prevent BR from ever being forced to sell subsidiaries.
BREL employs 36,000 people and has 13 workshops. Under the Bill, a number of those jobs and workshops could be at risk. The workshops' income rose from £178 million in 1975 to £378 million in 1979. Although they are largely geared to the highly specialised needs of BR, that has not prevented them from building up a considerable and worthwhile trade, when not fully utilised in supplying BR's needs, in building trains and wagons for other railway systems. BREL has built up a substantial export business. In the last financial year for which there are records, over £30 million came from sales to private customers, mainly overseas. It is an important and thriving business, mainly concerned with supplying the specialised needs of BR, but also supplying other railways throughout the world. Its current order book, which stands at about £50 million, includes orders from the Swiss and a number of African railways. In our economic position, we should not sneeze at that income or put it at risk.
BREL is a public business that has been improving its productivity substantially. In its last operating year it achieved a 10 per cent. increase in output, with an increase of only 2 per cent. in staff. In the previous year it increased productivity by 9 per cent.
In considering an amendment to a Bill, the first part of which is largely taken up by the Government's obsession with denationalisation, the House should realise that BREL has close links with many private sector manufacturers. Considerable parts of the private sector involving railway wagon and locomotive manufacture depends on arrangements with BREL. About 70 per cent. of new rolling stock components used by the subsidiary are purchased from the private sector and even 50 per cent. of the repair work involves purchases from the private sector.
The subsidiary has developed excellent production facilities. Last Friday I had the pleasure of visiting the Horwich works in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott), and I was particularly impressed by the foundry capacity that has been developed. It is probably the finest in the world.
It is notable that before the Bill was introduced no hint was given that it would cover BREL. The Tory manifesto certainly gave no hint that British Rail subsidiaries would be involved in denationalisation. At that time the National Freight Corporation was the only transport organisation to be denationalised.
The subsidiary provides a vital service to the British Railways Board. By taking only the contracts that it can cope with without limiting its service to BR, it earns money for the country through private sales while sustaining BR's capacity at a lower unit cost than if the workshops stood idle when not required to meet peak demands. In private hands, the company would not do that. Private management would gear to the troughs rather than the peaks of BR demand and keep for BR only the capacity that it could not continually fill with private work. Sale could also delay the investment programme, limit the capacity of the most profitable operation of existing facilities and jeopardise jobs and BR's income brought in by the service.
The Secretary of State says that he has no current intention to sell BREL. I hope that he will consider the many propositions for railway investment that would involve the subsidiary in a considerable amount of work. If he has no current intention to sell he does not need the provision in the Bill. If in future he has a serious case for selling BREL, he can then bring it to the House. We pressed him on the matter on Second Reading and in Committee, and he had no case to deploy. Therefore, we should pass the amendment to make a Bill which is causing concern to all in the public transport business a little less repulsive.

Mr. Harry Cowans (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central): I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). Apart from those dedicated Members who sat through the Committee stage, all of the Conservative Members seem to have belted off somewhere. As that is the nature of this place, I suppose that we must simply go on.
The purpose of the Bill is to hive off assets to private enterprise. Let us start the book at the first page. The railways were originally run by private enterprise companies. Those companies saw the wisdom of having their own workshops not only for building stock but for day-to-day heavy maintenance. So even under private enterprise the wisdom of owning the wherewithal to carry out maintenance and to experiment in building stock was foreseen. The Minister now says that private enterprise was wrong to do that, yet he is seeking to give British Rail Engineering Ltd. back to private enterprise. The analogy is similar through all the hiving-off provisions in the Bill.
Let us imagine what could happen. BREL does not carry out only major work. It does not build only locomotives and carriages. It also carries out heavy maintenance jobs. Its works are strategically placed across the country. That is no accident. It grew out of the old companies, which sited works within each region for the benefit of those private enterprise companies. They saw that it would be wrong to place maintenance and new stock needs with an outside monopoly. Yet that is what the Bill could do. There has been nothing in the Minister's words at any stage to deny that. Indeed, it was only through cross-questioning that it was forced out of the Government that BREL was to be considered as one of the subsidiaries. Never has there been a commitment from the Minister that if he sold it he would sell it entirely.
Private enterprise started these works and placed them in strategic places, but that will be undone and the railway will be in a very ambiguous position. It will no longer be able to get the service that it now receives from BREL. Inevitably, if BREL becomes a private company its first


commitment will be to the company. Undoubtedly it will look more and more to exports. It will not want the small jobs in the maintenance schedules. Its work load will not be geared to British Rail maintenance interests.
5.15 pm
In the past, engines and carriagework have been built by private enterprise. Most of that work went overseas. Frequently the companies concerned did not want to know about British Railways. That is why private enterprise saw the wisdom of the present system. Yet the Minister is now turning his back on that and on all that he advocates in his philosophy. He is saying that that system is wrong and that he will prevent British Rail providing for its own needs. They will be placed in the hands of people whose interest is not guaranteed to serve British Rail. This will do a vast disservice to British Rail, quite apart from destroying jobs. Even if it were decided to sell these assets piecemeal, British Rail's costs would inevitably be higher if it sought to use its own engineering services, because the work would have to be taken longer distances than at present. That would inevitably raise the cost of the works retained by British Rail. As a result the works might have to close and there would eventually be a monopoly, which I assume the Minister is against. He believes in free enterprise. Yet British Rail would be held by that monopoly and could do nothing about it if this power were to remain in the Bill.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Norman Fowler): First, I appreciate the concern of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and the hon. Member for Newcastle Upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans), which was also expressed in Committee.
I shall try to set out the background. The board's powers of disposal under clause 1(1) are deliberately drafted in general terms. They are not confined to specific subsidiaries because the Government and the board wish to open the way to the introduction of private capital into parts of the board's undertakings other than the four businesses mentioned if this first exercise is a success. We listed the first four businesses as Sealink, Hovercraft, hotels and non-operational property. But we think that it would be short-sighted to circumscribe the board's powers at this stage and so prevent it from taking opportunities which may later arise. It is on those grounds that we oppose the amendment.
There is nothing sinister in the potentially wide application of the powers in clause 1 or, indeed, the equivalent powers of direction in clause 3. The policy concerns the subsidiary companies of the railways. It does not concern the main rail system. Therefore, the suggestions that were made in Committee that this concerns the railway network are not valid. Moreover, the keystone of the Government's policy is our desire to provide in agreement with the board. Whatever other disagreement there may be between the two sides of the House it should be acknowledged that the Government have sought the agreement of the board. It is no secret that we have approached the problem from different points of view and have come to an agreement upon it. It is the board, operating through the holding company, British Rail Investments Ltd., which is taking the lead in making proposals and carrying them through. I would expect those proposals to take several forms.

Mr. Booth: In view of what the Minister has said about the Government seeking agreement with the board, will he

confirm that the board at no time suggested to him that it wanted an arrangement which would provide for the sale of BREL? That is the point of the amendment.

Mr. Fowler: The future of BREL is currently a matter of discussion between the Government and British Rail. The British Railways Board certainly wants improvements in British Rail engineering. frankly cannot remember at this stage whether we have discussed the issue of private investment. Certainly I think that there is nothing between us on the fact that we want improvements in British Rail engineering and in the company itself.
Perhaps I may develop the argument a little further. It is really the board operating through its holding company, British Rail Investment Ltd., which is taking the lead in making proposals and carrying them through.
I expect the proposals to take different forms. I do not want to constrain the board in any way in its opportunities to improve the performance of any part of the industry in which it is interested. The key which I invite the board to use is the attraction of private capital. We should consider whether that possibility could be usefully applied to BREL.
I want to discuss that with the board for several reasons. The first reason is that which the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness gave—that BREL is a large business. It has 13 works scattered round the country and employs over 35,000 staff. In 1979 its turnover was £387 million. The bulk of the work is for the Railway Board, but some work is also done for overseas railways. BREL's work load is of two types—the new construction of locomotives, rolling stock and other railway equipment, using a significant proportion of bought-in parts from the private sector, and the heavy maintenance of locomotives and rolling stock.
BREL is unique among Western European railway equipment manufacturers in that it is owned by and has a near-monopoly of supply to its national railway. It seems reasonable for the Government to want to take a fundamental look at that arrangement in association with the Railways Board to see whether the present organisation of the industry can be improved and made more cost-effective in the board's interest, and whether as a major manufacturing industry it can play a bigger part in terms of exports and export orders.
The potential export market is enormous. However, without a strong and competitive home market United Kingdom manufacturers will continue to be at a disadvantage in a fiercely competitive international market. The opportunities for larger earnings and wider employment must not be ignored.
Nothing is more important than that we should contain the costs of the railway system so that we have the best and most cost-effective industry. There cannot be any doubt or debate about that. The issues are important and we are examining them.
Clearly the issues will require a great deal of thought. We want to examine ways of improving the opportunities for the whole railway equipment industry—not only BREL but the private sector manufacturers—so that they can compete in the home and overseas markets. For the board there could be advantages in an arrangement which effectively gives it alternative sources of supply from which it can choose the best buy. There could be questions


about the structure and funding of at least parts of BREL. That is where the powers in the Bill might be brought into play.
We must exchange views with the board. I give the House a categoric assurance that there is absolutely no question of having reached conclusions on the subject except about my objective, which is clear. It is to produce a stronger, more efficient and more prosperous industry with a larger effective market round the world, which I hope will be to the benefit of the Railway Board and of Britain's export performance.
I hope that the House will agree that it would be folly at this stage to close off the access of powers which could in some circumstances help to secure that objective. That would be the effect of the amendment, and I ask the House to reject it.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness said that we had attempted to conceal our interest in giving BREL access to private investment. When I made my statement to the House last July, and in the exchanges which followed, I said that I would want to examine BREL's position. I repeated that on Second Reading and in Committee. There is no shift of policy. However, I emphasise that we have not come to conclusions.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about railway investment. I understand the concern about that. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that will benefit both BREL and the private sector. In that, as in all the other aspects of the Bill, we are trying to develop our policies in co-operation and agreement with the British Railways Board. I advise the House to reject the amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman listened to my remarks and will be reassured by them.

Mr. Stott: I listened with interest to the Secretary of State. Later I shall criticise some of his remarks. We must place on record what the Opposition feel about the proposals generally. Since the Government were elected they have introduced legislation the purpose of which is to sell off the profitable parts of publicly owned and financed industries. In some cases they claim that they have a mandate from the electorate. In other cases we believe that they have no such mandate.
The Government are introducing legislation the effect of which is to rip-off the profitable parts of public enterprise, left, right and centre. I refer to British Aerospace, British Airways, British Telecommunications, the postal services and British Rail subsidiaries. The language used is always the same. In the last two years we have examined legislation containing sweeping enabling powers. Powers are being given to Secretaries of State which were hitherto unknown.
The Telecommunications Bill states:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Corporation, direct the Corporation—(a) to dispose of any part of its undertaking and any assets held by it.
The largest business in Europe is being dictated to by the Secretary of State for Industry.
This Bill states:
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Railways Board, give directions to the Board requiring them … to exercise their powers under section 1 of this Act".
That clause contains provision for the board to divest itself of profitable assets.
We have argued long and hard against the Bill's provisions. We do not see any point in selling off valuable assets when British Rail needs a massive injection of public funds to sustain its rail network.
The Government may claim that the subsidiaries in question are somewhat peripheral to British Rail's main business. We reject that. Hotels, ships, hovercraft and ports are essential elements in an integrated transport system. Another subsidiary, British Rail Engineering Ltd. is the subject of this Bill. In Committee we tabled amendments to protect the named subsidiaries. However, if this Bill is enacted the Secretary of State will have the power to instruct British Rail to sell parts of BREL. He will not have to make any reference to Parliament other than, perhaps, a statement of his intentions.
5.30 pm
The Secretary of State cannot say that BREL is peripheral to British Rail's business. BREL is an integral part of the business of British Rail. Its work force, including those in my constituency who work at the Horwich plant, are members of the railway family. It is inconceivable that one of the world's finest and largest railway businesses should find itself denuded of its engineering workshops by ministerial proclamation. This amendment is an attempt to prevent the Secretary of State from doing that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) outlined the general performance of BREL. This year's annual report and accounts make clear that BREL is a profitable organisation, which contributes immensely to the well-being of the main rail network. As the Secretary of State pointed out, last year its gross income was £387 million. BREL has 13 workshops. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans) said, the plants are strategically placed throughout the regions and employ 36,236 people. The company has a fine record of productivity and of an interface with the main rail network. Therefore, the importance of BREL to British Rail's overall position is clear.
I accompanied my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness to BREL workshops in Horwich, in my constituency. About 2,500 people are employed there. I venture to suggest that most of them voted for me. Therefore, I feel, with some pride, that I may speak on their behalf. As my right hon. Friend said, that company has one of the most modern foundries in the world. Productivity is good and the work force is keen to win business and to do a good job. Castings at the Horwich foundry could amount to as much as 42,000 tonnes per annum.
The Secretary of State could issue a diktat to the British Rail Board to the effect that it should sell part of British Rail Engineering Ltd. Throughout our debates in Committee the Secretary of State and the Minister implied that the Government would prefer to sell the subsidiaries as a whole. What will happen to the 13 companies that comprise BREL? If they are sold off as a package and are frightened, at least two—and perhaps three—of those under private ownership will close almost immediately.
I have it on good authority for the manager of BREL at Horwich, Mr. Christopher Shepherd, that if BREL were to be sold to private enterprise British Rail's main line business would suffer. Private enterprise would not be able to cope with the orders. BREL has a low unit cost output


to British Rail. It manages to cater for the peaks and troughs of the business. If that integral part of British Rail were sold to private enterprise simply in order to satisfy some prejudiced view, it would only prove detrimental to British Rail. Therefore, BREL should not be included in the Bill and should not be considered for sale. That is why we have tabled the amendment.

Mr. Parris: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why, under private ownership, BREL would be unable to do what it now does under public ownership?

Mr. Stott: I do not wish to go into detail, because we are under a guillotine and other important amendments must be considered. However, my right hon. Friend and I visited BREL on Friday. We discussed this matter thoroughly with the manager for more than an hour. Having listened to his remarks, we are convinced that if BREL were sold to the private sector it would not be able to cope with the demand that British Rail places on its engineering workshops. Even today, BREL is suffering because it cannot get the parts that it requires from private enterprise. That is one of its main bones of contention.

Mr. Cowans: Surely the answer is that BREL is an integral part of the business of British Rail. The Minister emphasised exports, but not maintenence. If the Secretary of State sold BREL it would be like a bicycle dealer with a small repair shop and staff, sacking his staff, selling the stock and hoping that someone else would supply him so that he could repay the bank. If BREL was sold to private enterprise, maintenance would not be the private firms's major concern. It would be able to diversify and do other things. However, at present BREL is an integral part of the railway industry and is geared to meeting the needs of British Rail. It exports when it has the capacity to do so.

Mr. Stott: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. He has spent all his life in the railway industry and speaks with great authority in the House. I cannot add to or detract from anything that he said. However, the Government may wish to pursue their doctrinal approach and their war of attrition against publicly owned enterprises. They may claim that they have a mandate to do so. They may even claim that that is the wish of the majority. So be it. BREL was not one of the named subsidiaries that was dealt with in Committee. Nevertheless, the Bill would enable the Secretary of State to trigger off the mechanism that would enable him to sell BREL. We have tabled an amendment to prevent him from doing that.
If the Secretary of State wishes to sell BREL he should come before the House with another Bill and argue his corner. He should not have sleeping powers that could be used at a future date. We have never seen the like of such powers before. This Secretary of State and many others hold enabling powers to flog off almost the entire public sector. We have had enough of that. That is why we have tabled the amendment and that is why we shall divide the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 287.

Division No. 155]
[5.39 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Adams, Allen
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Allaun, Frank
Ashton, Joe


Alton, David
Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)





Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Homewood, William


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Hon Greville


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cowans, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kerr, Russell


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Crowther, J. S.
Lamborn, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dormand, Jack
McMahon, Andrew


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McNally, Thomas


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Robert


Dunn, James A.
McWilliam, John


Dunnett, Jack
Magee, Bryan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marks, Kenneth


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (Newton)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Field, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Fitch, Alan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Fitt, Gerard
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George


Ford, Ben
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
Ogden, Eric


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
O'Halloran, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Neill, Martin


Freud, Clement
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Palmer, Arthur


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Ginsburg, David
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)






Race, Reg
Stoddart, David


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Straw, Jack


Richardson, Jo
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tilley, John


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tinn, James


Robertson, George
Torney, Tom


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Roper, John
Watkins, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Weetch, Ken


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Welsh, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
White, Frank R.


Ryman, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Sever, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Sir J.(W'ton)


Short, Mrs Renée
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Woolmer, Kenneth


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spearing, Nigel



Spriggs, Leslie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. James Hamilton.


Steel, Rt Hon David



Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Alison, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Arnold, Tom
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Corrie, John


Banks, Robert
Costain, Sir Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Bell, Sir Ronald
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Elliott, Sir William


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Emery, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, John (Newton)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eyre, Reginald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brinton, Tim
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brittan, Leon
Farr, John


Brotherton, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fox, Marcus


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Butler, Hon Adam
Fry, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian





Glyn, Dr Alan
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gow, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A.
Myles, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Heddle, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Hill, James
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hooson, Tom
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knox, David
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Hugh


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lee, John
Scott, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard


Loveridge, John
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley


MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spence, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sproat, Iain


McQuarrie, Albert
Stainton, Keith


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Martin


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Waddington, David


Thompson, Donald
Wakeham, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Thornton, Malcolm
Walker, B. (Perth )


Tilley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wall, Patrick


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Waller, Gary


Trippier, David
Walters, Dennis


Trotter, Neville
Ward, John


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Watson, John


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wells, John (Maidstone)

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'(3) Where by consent of the Secretary of State under section 1(2) or by direction of the Secretary of State under section 3(1) British Railways sell more than 50 per cent. of the shares in any one of their subsidiaries, British Railways shall not be held to be in control of that subsidiary for the purpose of public sector control of British Railways External Financing Limit.'.
The purpose of the amendment is to prevent any British Rail subsidiary from being maintained within an external financing limit set by the Government after 51 per cent. or more of the shares in that subsidiary have been sold. The external financing limit control on many nationalised industries has been a cause of grave concern and a cause of problems. It has made it almost impossible to plan an effective investment programme.
This concern has been expressed recently by the TUC nationalised industries committee, and previously by the chairmen of the nationalised industries, who have set up a study group which has considered different ways of financing nationalised industries.
On amendment No. 1 the Secretary of State chose to stress that he was seeking to proceed, as far as possible, by agreement with the British Railways Board. Therefore, it is my judgment, from the information that I have from those running the subsidiaries of British Railways, that there is no possibility of proceeding by agreement if the Secretary of State is to insist on keeping those subsidiaries under an external financing limit set by the Government after they sold 51 per cent. or more of their shares.
The basic reason why some members of the management of British Rail subsidiaries have gone along with the idea of privatisation is that they believed that it was the only way open to them to escape from what they thought were the impossibly tight limits being set for them by the Government under the external financing limit arrangement.
The major aim, therefore, of the British Railways Board, in dealing with the four named subsidiaries—when they agreed with the Government that it would be worth while, if there were no other way to get outside the external financing limit, to sell a private interest in the subsidiaries—was to escape that form of control. I believe that they were led to understand, or were caused to understand, that in order to escape the external financing limits, which they thought were impossibly inhibiting the development of their businesses, they would, first, have to operate without public sector guarantees. That was made clear to them and I think they understood it.
They understood that they would be unable to retain a majority of the directorship of a subsidiary if they were to be outwith external financing limits. They also understood that any contracts that existed between British Railways and a subsidiary once it had been sold off to the extent of 51 per cent. or more would have to be contracts that were in such a form that there would be clearly defined liabilities as between British Railways and their ex-subsidiaries. I say  because we are talking about subsidiaries in a way that would not be recognised by the definition of "subsidiary" under the Companies Act. Clearly, these bodies will be more than 51 per cent. privately owned and, therefore, not subsidiaries in the normal sense of the word.
However, since the Bill has commenced its proceedings through the House there have been growing suspicions, confirmed in Committee, that the Government are going

to set much tighter limits upon the sale of British Railways' subsidiaries before they will release them from the external financing limit.
In Committee, when we probed this matter, the Under-Secretary made it clear that it would not be enough for them to sell 51 per cent. and, when we pressed him further, that it might not be enough for them to sell 60 per cent., or sometimes even 70 per cent. He said it depended upon how the shares were distributed, and it would also depend upon the British Railways Board being able to demonstrate that it had virtually lost all control or influence in the running of a subsidiary before it might be released from the external financing limit.
British Rail is so urgently in need of money that it may already have spent considerable money and management time in seeking to arrange sales of its subsidiaries on assumptions that it quite fairly made about the nature of this legislation—assumptions that have now proved to be wrong. The only way to underline the justifiable case that BR subsidiaries, or ex-subsidiaries, should be able to operate outside the EFL is by agreeing to the amendment.
As it is at the moment, the subsidiaries compete with one another and with the board for the limited amount that is available in borrowing to British Railways. If a subsidiary borrows £50 million more for investment, that is £50 million less for the main board to invest in main line operations. They compete with one another, they compete with the board, and they are desperate for access to outside capital.
If the Government insist that the conditions of having access to outside capital is that British Railways must sell off some part, or even a majority holding, it is only reasonable that they should be allowed to proceed with that development in the same way as any private business would be allowed to proceed with a development had it sold out a 51 per cent. holding in part of its operation. It would be free to develop its loan arrangements with the agreement of the 51 per cent. or more of its private shareholders, or such directors as they had elected.
Unless this is carried out, what we are engaged in in the Bill is little more than a public asset-stripping operation that will not assist the British Railways Board or its subsidiaries in any way whatsoever, and can aid only those who have been enabled to buy in on extremely favourable terms—terms that could be achieved only because the British Railways Board has been hog-tied in its arrangements.
In the remaining 30 minutes it is impossible to try to debate intelligently all the outstanding important amendments that are to be dealt with under the guillotine motion. Therefore, it is not my intention to press the matter to a vote—not that my hon. Friends and I do not feel very strongly about it; we feel extremely strongly, but we feel that it would be quite wrong to spend a quarter of an hour in Division time that would prevent our going on to one more of the important issues in view of the impossible constraints set upon us by the guillotine.

6 pm

Mr. Peter Snape: I shall be brief because, like my right hon. Friend, I wish to say a word on the next amendment. It seems to me that the Government's case, as they will put it forward in rejecting the amendment, will be their general argument that a majority private stake is necessary to permit investment in the subsidiaries to escape the PSBR net and a more specific


argument in relation to Sealink, which I hope we shall deal with later, namely, that a successful flotation of shares can occur only with a minority BR holding or, indeed, with none at all.
One thing that puzzles my union—the National Union of Railwaymen—and that also puzzles the chairmen of the British Railways Board—and, I have no doubt, other members of the board—is the difference in the way that BR subsidiaries are being treated in terms of PSBR compared to other publicly owned industries—for example, British Airways. I mention Sir Peter Parker deliberately because, of course, not only is that gentleman the chairman of the British Railways Board; he serves on the board of British Airways, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman replies to the amendment he will do something to dispel the aura of mystery and doubt in Sir Peter Parker's mind as well as assuring Opposition Members that he knows what he is doing.
When the Civil Aviation Bill was debated in the House on 19 November 1979 the key sentence, in col. 39–40 of Hansard, in terms of British Airways, was:
the airline will no longer be subject to statutory financial targets, nor will it be subject to cash limits."—[Official Report, 19 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 39–40.]
As a railwayman, I have to say that if it is good enough for British Airways it is good enough for us, and the air of mystery that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary have created in respect of this aspect of the Bill concerns us all.

Mr. Fowler: The amendment relates to an issue that we discussed extensively in Committee. What we have sought to explain to hon. Gentlemen and to the right hon. Gentleman is why it is necessary for the British Railways Board to relinquish effective control over its subsidiaries if these businesses are to enjoy the full freedom of the private sector and if their borrowing and investment is no longer to count against the board's external financing limit and investment ceiling.
The object of the whole exercise is to seek to transfer these businesses to the private sector, where they can be free of the existing constraints of the public sector. There are two stages in this process. Once the board no longer holds the majority of shares in a business and can no longer control the composition of its board of directors, the company will cease to be a subsidiary within the meaning of the Transport Acts and the statutory controls in those Acts will no longer apply to it.
However, even where the board holds a minority of the shares it is possible in some circumstances, depending on the distribution of the other shareholdings and the trading relationship, if any, between the board and the company, that the board would be able to exercise de facto control over the company, and in that case the company would still be classified to the public sector and its borrowing and investment would still be controlled by the board's external financing limit and investment ceiling. Also, of course, its borrowing would continue to count against the PSBR.
The question whether the board is still exercising effective control of a company, has to be determined basically upon the facts of the particular case. The purpose of the amendment is to short-circuit this process by statutory means; in other words, to provide that once a board ceases to hold a majority of the shares in a business it shall no longer be deemed to control it, no matter what the reality of the situation is. Frankly, I do not think that

will do, because it is based upon the misconception of the nature and the purpose of the PSBR. The point is that the Government or Parliament: cannot merely decide what shall and shall not be held to count against the PSBR; that is a practical and factual definition, and markets will certainly start to look beyond the so-called definition and to the real facts of the matter, and they will start taking their own view of who is and who is not effectively borrowing on the Government's credit. That is the important point.
After all, the nationalised industries effectively rely upon Government credit, and we are seeking to do something genuine—not to issue what is in fact a disguised form of gilts but to produce genuine private risk capital.
However hard the Government try to pretend that the PSBR is defined in one way, the markets will see the truth of the matter, as markets tend to do. Interest rates or inflation cannot be altered just by juggling with the words. The external financing limit was not introduced by this Government; it was introduced by the Labour Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, and the rules on what counts against the EFL and against the PSBR are common to the previous Administration and to this one.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) suggested that there was some misunderstanding of the position within British Rail. He thinks that British Rail has been misled, or is misled, about the position. In fact, the chairman of British Rail Investments, who, as I explained earlier, is the chairman of the holding company under the board, set out very clearly to the Rail Council the issues that are involved.
He told the Rail Council that the two basic criteria for deciding whether an economic unit is in or out of the public sector are, basically, control and ownership, and that there had to be convincing evidence that the public sector had permanently given up control over board aspects of policy, such as capital investment and borrowing and pricing, before the business in question could be classified as being in the private sector. There is no hint of misunderstanding about that situation.
The chairman then said that if British Rail retained 50 per cent. or more of the shares it would clearly be able to exercise control of the board of directors and, hence, would not satisfy the requirement that control must pass. He made the distinction—it is a distinction for which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snare) asked—between that situation and the situation of British Airways or the British Transport Docks Board. The situation with the docks board or with British Airways is that what we are talking about is a Government shareholding.
It is one thing for the Government to say that they are not going to exercise control; it is another thing, with a 50 per cent. stake, for a nationalised industry to say that. That is the essential difference. But Mr. Bosworth, the chairman of British Rail Investments, went on to put exactly the point of the amendment. He said, "Suppose now that we retain 49 per cent. of the share capital. Although we could in theory be outvoted, the practical likelihood of that happening is very small. It is likely, therefore, that the Treasury would regard this not as a true surrender of control but, rather, as a device to evade the rule."

Mr. Booth: Will the Secretary of State accept that what the board initially discussed with him was not ways in which it might surrender control? It was not interested in that. It was interested in ways in which it might get out with the EFL and relieve itself of a massive financial problem. It has never declared itself in favour of forfeiting control for the sake of doing that.

Mr. Fowler: On several occasions I have tried to explain the matter to the right hon. Gentleman. He is fundamentally wrong. He is simply not accurate in his understanding of the British Railways Board provision. At the time that I made the statement the board knew perfectly well—I did seek to explain the position in Committee and in reply to the agreed questions that were to follow in the House of Commons—that if the business was to escape public sector controls and go into the private sector, control had to pass. That has always been understood by the chairman of British Rail. No purpose is served by the right hon. Gentleman's continuing to put the point and say that it was not understood by them.
Further, the chairman of British Rail Investments, which holds the subsidiary companies, has now set out the position to the rail unions. It is that position that I am seeking to summarise. It completely demolishes the right hon. Gentlemen's argument that no one understands the position.

Mr. Snape: If the right hon. Gentleman will not accept what my right hon. Friend says, will he accept from me that at a meeting between the British Railways Board and the NUR within the last year—a meeting at which I happened to be present—senior officers of the board assured my union—the major union in the railway business—that a holding of approximately 30 per cent. would be sufficient to retain control of these subsidiaries. Will he take that from me? That is what they told us.

Mr. Fowler: I take what the hon. Gentleman says as stating the facts of the situation and of the meeting that he attended, but the point is that I am sure that there was no misunderstanding of the position at the time the agreement was reached between the Government and the board. I emphasise that we came to this situation from different points, as the hon. Gentleman, with his knowledge of the railway industry, knows. There was negotiation, we sought to reach agreement, and we reached agreement.
What was basic to that agreement was that in order for a business—or part of a business—to go from the public sector and gain the advantages of the private sector, control had to pass.
Mr. Bosworth's statement of the situation is an outstanding statement, made directly to the Rail Council and to the rail unions. It is by far the clearest statement that has ever been made on this subject. Mr. Bosworth said:
As the retained shareholding becomes less, the strength of an argument that we really have abandoned effective control becomes greater. At 40 per cent., for example, there must be quite a strong likelihood that the BRB could be outvoted if most of the other shareholders so desired, and provided that we were not seeking to exercise control in other, more subtle ways, it is hoped that the Treasury might be convinced that we really had surrendered effective control.
He went on:
Thus our aim must be to enable the businesses to escape from the PSBR and this means surrendering effective control. At the same time, where practicable we want to retain a continuing stake in the businesses, and a voice in their affairs, and we shall need to ensure that future railway requirements are fully safeguarded.

The right hon. Gentleman asked when it was said. It was said in March, at a meeting of the Rail Council.

Mr. Booth: Long after Second Reading.

Mr. Fowler: Certainly it was long after Second Reading; there is no dispute about that. But there is considerable dispute if the right hon. Gentleman seeks to say that there is a misunderstanding about the position now. There is certainly no misunderstanding on the part of the board and I hope that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the unions. Everyone has been open about the position. Basically, it means that control must pass. But of course it also means that the British Railways Board can keep a substantial stake, if that is its desire, in the new company that is so formed.
I hope that with that account of the situation the right hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 36, at end insert
'Where any matter concerning the sale of a British Railways subsidiary has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission the Secretary of State shall not direct the Board to sell this subsidiary, or part of it, if he has refused consent for a sale or a merger by British Railways of another subsidiary operating a competing service'.
The object of the amendment is to prevent the Government from forcing the British Railways Board to sell a subsidiary that has been referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission where the Government have refused the board consent to sell or merge a subsidiary that is running a competing service. By the time the Bill has been enacted at least two British Railways Board subsidiaries could be affected by the amendment. British Rail's work on a merger proposal for Seaspeed Hovercraft Services is currently delayed by a Government decision to refer its merger proposal to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—a delay that may make it extremely difficult for it to carry through its financial plans for its hovercraft services, at least for the next couple of years.
In the case of Sealink—British Rail's shipping and ferry service—the board is working to achieve a profitable position again, following a very hard year in 1980, when few people made a profit from operating in the Channel. It has had a proposed bid by European Ferries—the company chaired by the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden)—referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission before a bid has even been considered by the British Railways Board—in fact, even before a detailed bid has been received.
The Government, by these two references, have certainly raised the fear that they will force British Rail to sell Sealink—providing that is cleared by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission—and hold up the development of British Rail's own plans for the merger of British Hovercraft Services in order that whoever privately owns Sealink will be in a strong position to monopolise cross-Channel services. To force British Rail to sell Sealink at this time would virtually ensure a distress sale. There is no doubt that the few profitable years before 1980 would mean that it would take a year or two to put itself back into a profitable position in which it could consider reasonable bids.
Furthermore, it will take time for British Rail to get its new ferries into operation—ferries, incidentally, that were built in British shipyards; we have no certainty that ferries built by a privately owned Sealink will be ordered from British shipyards—and to bring the service up to its full profitability and be the best saleable proposition.
British Rail needs to know—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us tonight—when the Secretary of State will clear its proposal for hovercraft, whether that service will be in the Channel, and under what arrangements.
Without such a safeguard against a Channel monopoly we could be in a situation in which there will be a private monopoly on the Channel, with no public holding whatsoever. It could be completely sold out, with no guarantee of maintaining the cross-Channel link between the railway networks of this country and of France. These are my grounds for moving the amendment.

Mr. Snape: It is true that on most clauses there is a wide ideological gulf between the Government and the Opposition, but it is equally true that the Government have valid reasons for advancing their proposals in other clauses. In a previous amendment the right hon. Member pointed out that as his party regarded competition as the be-all and end-all for British Railways engineering, and as private enterprise should be allowed to compete in these markets, the Conservative Party, having stood for enterprise and competition, was justified in its proposals.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to eat his words on this clause. He knows that if the Monopolies and Mergers Commission decides to allow the European Ferries bid for Sealink to go ahead one private company will control about 80 per cent. of the total cross-Channel traffic. The competition that exists at present between Sealink and European Ferries will be dead. The advertisements for European Ferries that are to be seen on television represent competition that arose only fairly recently. Six or seven years ago the English Channel was widely regarded as the most expensive stretch of water in the world. Over the past few years there has been intense competition for the available traffic, and fares have fallen dramatically. No one believes that that dramatic fall in fares will continue if European Ferries is allowed a virtual monopoly of the cross-Channel services, which is what it will get.
My right hon. Friend rightly stated that Sealink has an honourable record in having its ships built in the United Kingdom. Over the past 20 years, of Sealink's 32 vessels currently in operation no fewer than 21 have been built in British shipyards. As to the competition, which does not look as if it will last much longer, European Ferries has never once placed an order with Harland and Wolff. I am surprised that some of our Ulster neighbours, who always protest that they are concerned about prospects in Northern Ireland, are not here to support the Opposition in this matter.
During its entire history European Ferries has never placed an order with Harland and Wolff. Lloyd's Register of Shipping shows that European Ferries has ordered no vessels from United Kingdom shipyards in the past 10 years. Over the past decade it has placed its orders with West Germany, Holland and Denmark.
The Townsend car ferries vessel, which so proudly entered Cherbourg during last summer, during the French fishermen's blockade, playing "Land of Hope and

Glory"—"Viking Venturer"—was built in Aalborg, in Denmark. The ship that immediately followed it into that port, also playing "Land of Hope and Glory" was built in Bremerhaven; so perhaps "Deutscheland Uber Alles" would have been a better anthem for that ship to play.
We all know the reasons behind the Government's very fast referral of this bid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. As our Sunday colour supplements tell us every week, the Prime Minister is a great admirer of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). It is not surprising that the right hon. Lady should be a great admirer of that hon. Gentleman because, unlike the majority of Conservative Members, the hon. Member for Dorking has actually worked for his living. The Conservative Party professes to be the party of business, but business experience appears to be remarkably lacking in many Conservative Members. The Prime Minister has expressed her admiration for the hon. Member for Dorking and her desire to see his success amply rewarded. The fact that his success in private enterprise should be rewarded by the plundering—I choose my word carefully—of one of the State's assets is little short of disgraceful.
Those of us who were here in the last Parliament well remember legislation such as the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill, when we fought long and hard throughout the night to preserve these assets on behalf of the State. We were then told by the Tories that these measures amounted to virtual confiscation of privately owned undertakings. Now the boot is on the other foot with a vengeance, in the form of Sealink.
I told the office of the hon. Member for Dorking that during the course of the afternoon I intended to refer to his bid. I quite understand the reason for his absence—he is detained in a Committee of the House. All that I can say about the hon. Member is that he reminds me at least of the villain in H. G. Wells' book "The Autocracy of Mr. Parham"—Sir Blasted Bussy Bussy, Buy-up-the-Universe Woodcock, of whom it was said:
He's the sort of man who buys up everything. Shops and houses and factories. Estates and pot houses. Quarries. Whole trades. Buys things on the way to you. Fiddles about with 'em a bit before you get 'em. You can't eat a pat of butter in London now before he's bought and sold it. Railways he buys, hotels, cinemas and suburbs, men and women, soul and body. Mind he doesn't buy you.
That is what H. G. Wells said about the villain in that book.
All those sentiments could well be applied to the hon. Member for Dorking, for, not satisfied with his shipping company, a television station, a garage and various other businesses, he now seeks to strip the State of one of its assets. The National Union of Railwaymen, like the National Union of Seamen, will do its best to see that he does not get away with it.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the question of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) and his possible buying up of public assets, to which my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) referred, can we have a ruling from you whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Dorking to take part in the Division'? In my experience on a local authority before I became a Member it would have been inconceivable for a local authority member to take part in a vote on a matter in which he had a great, or even a small, financial interest. I should like a ruling on the question whether the hon. Member for


Dorking, or, indeed, any of his hon. Friends who have a financial stake in this matter, can properly take part in the Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is a hypothetical question. I have no idea who is going to take part in any Division, or, indeed, if there is going to be a Division.

Mr. Fowler: I shall reply rapidly to this debate. I hope that there will not be a Division on the amendment. I think that the right hon. Member for Barrow in Furness (Mr. Booth) regarded it as a probing amendment.
We have taken the view that over the years Sealink has undoubtedly suffered from being within the public sector; it has lacked management attention and it has been deprived of investment. We believe that the future will show little or no improvement, because the board intends to concentrate its scarce available resources on the railways. The board and the Government agree that giving Sealink access to private capital is the only sensible solution. The board hopes that a general flotation of Sealink shares on the stock market will be possible. Obviously, that is something that the Government would welcome. If, on the other hand, the board wants to decide on some other means, it is up to the board. The one point that I wish to emphasise is that the board is in the lead, and it is for it to make proposals.
European Ferries announced some months ago that if the board offered for sale shares in Sealink it would like to acquire a controlling interest. However, no bid has actually been made. European Ferries has merely said that it hopes to make a bid at an appropriate time. It is very much a matter for the board of British Rail. Last month, on the advice of the Director General of Fair Trading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade referred the proposed bid——

It being half past six o'clock,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [9 March] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

The House divided: Ayes 221, Noes 299.

Division No. 155]
[5.39 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Adams, Allen
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Allaun, Frank
Ashton, Joe


Alton, David
Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)





Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Beith, A. J.
Grant, John (Islington C)


Bidwell, Sydney
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hardy, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bradley, Tom
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Haynes, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Homewood, William


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Howells, Geraint


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cant, R. B.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Hon Greville


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
John, Brynmor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cohen, Stanley
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Cook, Robin F.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cowans, Harry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Kerr, Russell


Craigen, J. M.
Lambie, David


Crowther, J. S.
Lamborn, Harry


Cryer, Bob
Lamond, James


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Leighton, Ronald


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davidson, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McElhone, Frank


Dempsey, James
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Dewar, Donald
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dixon, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dobson, Frank
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dormand, Jack
McMahon, Andrew


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McNally, Thomas


Dubs, Alfred
McNamara, Kevin


Duffy, A. E. P.
McTaggart, Robert


Dunn, James A.
McWilliam, John


Dunnett, Jack
Magee, Bryan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Marks, Kenneth


Eadie, Alex
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


English, Michael
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (Newton)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Field, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Fitch, Alan
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Fitt, Gerard
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George


Ford, Ben
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Forrester, John
Newens, Stanley


Foster, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Foulkes, George
Ogden, Eric


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
O'Halloran, Michael


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Neill, Martin


Freud, Clement
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Palmer, Arthur


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parker, John


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pavitt, Laurie


Ginsburg, David
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)






Race, Reg
Stoddart, David


Radice, Giles
Stott, Roger


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Straw, Jack


Richardson, Jo
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Tilley, John


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Tinn, James


Robertson, George
Torney, Tom


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Rooker, J. W.
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Roper, John
Watkins, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Weetch, Ken


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Welsh, Michael


Rowlands, Ted
White, Frank R.


Ryman, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Sandelson, Neville
Whitlock, William


Sever, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Sir J.(W'ton)


Short, Mrs Renée
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Woolmer, Kenneth


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton E)


Spearing, Nigel



Spriggs, Leslie
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stallard, A. W.
Mr. Donald Coleman and Mr. James Hamilton.


Steel, Rt Hon David



Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Alison, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Clegg, Sir Walter


Ancram, Michael
Cockeram, Eric


Arnold, Tom
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, John


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Corrie, John


Banks, Robert
Costain, Sir Albert


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cranborne, Viscount


Bell, Sir Ronald
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Dover, Denshore


Biffen, Rt Hon John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Elliott, Sir William


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Emery, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Evans, John (Newton)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Eyre, Reginald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Bright, Graham
Fairgrieve, Russell


Brinton, Tim
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brittan, Leon
Farr, John


Brotherton, Michael
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fookes, Miss Janet


Buck, Antony
Forman, Nigel


Budgen, Nick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fox, Marcus


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Butler, Hon Adam
Fry, Peter


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian





Glyn, Dr Alan
Mellor, David


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gorst, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Gow, Ian
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger


Gray, Hamish
Monro, Hector


Grieve, Percy
Montgomery, Fergus


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Moore, John


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Grylls, Michael
Mudd, David


Gummer, John Selwyn
Murphy, Christopher


Hamilton, Hon A.
Myles, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Neale, Gerrard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, John
Neubert, Michael


Haselhurst, Alan
Newton, Tony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Normanton, Tom


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Hawksley, Warren
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Hayhoe, Barney
Osborn, John


Heddle, John
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Parkinson, Cecil


Hill, James
Parris, Matthew


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hooson, Tom
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Porter, Barry


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rifkind, Malcolm


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Knox, David
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lang, Ian
Rossi, Hugh


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lee, John
Scott, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard


Loveridge, John
Shersby, Michael


Luce, Richard
Silvester, Fred


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


McCrindle, Robert
Skeet, T. H. H.


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Dudley


MacGregor, John
Speller, Tony


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spence, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Sproat, Iain


McQuarrie, Albert
Stainton, Keith


Madel, David
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Stevens, Martin


Marlow, Tony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)


Mates, Michael
Stokes, John


Mather, Carol
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Tapsell, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tebbit, Norman


Mayhew, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter






Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Waddington, David


Thompson, Donald
Wakeham, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Thornton, Malcolm
Walker, B. (Perth )


Tilley, John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wall, Patrick


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Waller, Gary


Trippier, David
Walters, Dennis


Trotter, Neville
Ward, John


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Watson, John


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wells, John (Maidstone)




Wells, Bowen
Wolfson, Mark


Wheeler, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Whitney, Raymond
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wickenden, Keith



Wiggin, Jerry
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilkinson, John
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Williams, D.(Montgomery)



Winterton, Nicholas

Division No. 156]
[6.30 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Canavan, Dennis


Adams, Allen
Cant, R. B.


Allaun, Frank
Carmichael, Neil


Anderson, Donald
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Stanley


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Cook, Robin F.


Bidwell, Sydney
Cowans, Harry


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Craigen, J. M.


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
Crowther, J. S.


Bradley, Tom
Cryer, Bob


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Cunningham, G. (Islington S)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Davidson, Arthur


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)


Buchan, Norman
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)


Campbell, Ian
Deakins, Eric


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)





Dempsey, James
McMahon, Andrew


Dewar, Donald
McNally, Thomas


Dixon, Donald
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
McWilliam, John


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Magee, Bryan


Dubs, Alfred
Marks, Kenneth


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dunn, James A.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Dunnett, Jack
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Eadie, Alex
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eastham, Ken
Meacher, Michael


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


English, Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fitch, Alan
Morton, George


Fitt, Gerard
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Flannery, Martin
Newens, Stanley


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Ford, Ben
Ogden, Eric


Forrester, John
O'Halloran, Michael


Foster, Derek
O'Neill, Martin


Foulkes, George
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Palmer, Arthur


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Parker, John


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parry, Robert


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Pavitt, Laurie


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Ginsburg, David
Prescott, John


Golding, John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Gourlay, Harry
Race, Reg


Graham, Ted
Radice, Giles


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)


Grant, John (Islington C)
Richardson, Jo


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hardy, Peter
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Robertson, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Haynes, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Heffer, Eric S.
Roper, John


Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Home Robertson, John
Rowlands, Ted


Homewood, William
Ryman, John


Hooley, Frank
Sandelson, Neville


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Sever, John


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Hon Greville
Short, Mrs Renée


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


John, Brynmor
Skinner, Dennis


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Snape, Peter


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Spearing, Nigel


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Spriggs, Leslie


Kerr, Russell
Stallard, A. W.


Lambie, David
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Lamborn, Harry
Stoddart, David


Lamond, James
Stott, Roger


Leighton, Ronald
Straw, Jack


Lestor, Miss Joan
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Litherland, Robert
Tilley, John


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Torney, Tom


Lyon, Alexander (York)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


McCartney, Hugh
Watkins, David


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Weetch, Ken


McElhone, Frank
Wellbeloved, James


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Welsh, Michael


McKelvey, William
White, Frank R.


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)






Whitlock, William
Woodall, Alec


Wigley, Dafydd
Woolmer, Kenneth


Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Young, David (Bolton E)


Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)



Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)
Mr. James Tinn and Mr. Allen McKay


Wilson, William (C'try SE)



Winnick, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Alton, David
Elliott, Sir William


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Emery, Peter


Ancram, Michael
Eyre, Reginald


Arnold, Tom
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairgrieve, Russell


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Farr, John


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Banks, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Fookes, Miss Janet


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Fox, Marcus


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Freud, Clement


Biggs-Davison, John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Blaker, Peter
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Body, Richard
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, Andrew
Goodhart, Philip


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Goodlad, Alastair


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gorst, John


Bright, Graham
Gow, Ian


Brinton, Tim
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brittan, Leon
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Brotherton, Michael
Gray, Hamish


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Greenway, Harry


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grieve, Percy


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Buck, Antony
Grist, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Grylls, Michael


Burden, Sir Frederick
Gummer, John Selwyn


Butcher, John
Hamilton, Hon A.


Butler, Hon Adam
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hannam, John


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Haselhurst, Alan


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Paul


Churchill, W. S.
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hayhoe, Barney


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heddle, John


Clegg, Sir Walter
Henderson, Barry


Cockeram, Eric
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cope, John
Hill, James


Cormack, Patrick
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Corrie, John
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Costain, Sir Albert
Hooson, Tom


Cranborne, Viscount
Hordern, Peter


Critchley, Julian
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Howells, Geraint


Dorrell, Stephen
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dover, Denshore
Hurd, Hon Douglas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick





Jessel, Toby
Proctor, K Harvey


Johnson Smith Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davies, W R


Kimball, Marcus
Renton, Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rhodes James, Robert


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lang, Ian
Roberts, M (Cardiff NW)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lawrence, Ivan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rossi, Hugh


Lee, John
Rost, Peter


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
St John-Stevas, Rt Hon N


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Scott, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Loveridge, John
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Luce, Richard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Shersby, Michael


MacGregor, John
Silvester, Fred


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Sims, Roger


Macmillan, Rt Hon M
Skeet, T H H


McNair-Wilson, M (N bury)
Smith, Dudley


McNair-Wilson, P (New F'st)
Speller, Tony


McQuarrie, Albert
Spence, John


Madel, David
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Major, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stainton, Keith


Mates, Michael
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mather, Carol
Stanley, John


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mawby, Ray
Stevens, Martin


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, A (E Renfrewshire)


Mayhew, Patrick
Stokes, John


Mellor, David
Stradling Thomas, J


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Tebbit, Norman


Miscampbell, Norman
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Monro, Hector
Thompson, Donald


Montgomery, Fergus
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Moore, John
Thornton Malcolm


Morris, M (N hampton S)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Townsend, Cyril D, (B heath)


Mudd, David
Tnppier, David


Murphy, Christopher
Trotter, Neville


Myles, David
van Straubenzee, W R


Neale, Gerrard
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, David


Newton, Tony
Wakeham, John


Normanton, Tom
Walker, Rt Hon P (W'cester)


Onslow, Cranley
Walker, B (Perth)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Osborn, John
Wall, Patrick


Page, Rt Hon Sir G (Crosby)
Waller, Gary


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Walters, Dennis


Parkinson, Cecil
Ward, John


Parris, Matthew
Watson, John


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Patten, John (Oxford)
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wheeler, John


Pawsey, James
Whitney, Raymond


Percival, Sir Ian
Wiggin, Jerry


Pollock, Alexander
Wilkinson, John


Porter, Barry
Williams, D (Montgomery)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Winterton, Nicholas


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Wolfson, Mark






Young, Sir George (Acton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Younger, Rt Hon George
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Six o'clock.

Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 43, at end insert—
'(5) In section 4(5) of the Railways Act 1974 (duty of Board to include certain information in the annual report made under section 4), after the words "1962 Act", in paragraph (b), there are inserted the words "section 3 of the Transport Act 1981".'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Schedule 1

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SECTIONS 1 TO 3

Amendments made: No. 9, in page 28, line 21, leave out 'and'.

No. 10, in page 28, line 22, at end insert
'; and (c) subsections (1) and (3)(a) of section 5 of the 1962 Act.'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would you confirm that on page 407 of "Erskine May" there is a paragraph about votes on matters affected by a personal pecuniary interest? I understand that the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) has not voted. It was absolutely right that he should not have done so, because he has a direct pecuniary interest. You did not rule earlier in response to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The hon. Member for Dorking has set an important precedent, especially when the Government are hiving off undertakings. Any Conservative Member who has a pecuniary interest must follow that precedent.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As I understand it, the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden) did not vote, and so what I said earlier was correct. I said that it was a hypothetical question; it remains a hypothetical question.

Clause 6

THE FINANCIAL STRUCTURE

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 11 in page 5, line 17, at end insert—
'(5) The Secretary of State shall give directions to secure that if a majority of the total nominal value of the shares are sold there shall be voting and non-voting shares and that a majority of the voting shares are retained by the Secretary of State'.
We now move to part II, which deals with the hiving off of another important public asset, the British Transport Docks Board. The amendment is designed to draw attention to the widely held view on the management and trade union side of the industry that the Government intended to hold a majority share in this company. In Committee it became clear that that was not as plain as many had thought, and a great deal of attention was directed to the words used by those who had been party to the understandings reached in discussions with the trade unions and the BTDB. The amendment expresses our view that if we are to go along the road of denationalising—"privatising", as it is called—the Government's original intention, as expressed on Second

Reading—to hold a majority shareholding—should be maintained for the life of the Government and not, as is now suggested, for a short period. We are utterly opposed to this proposed course, but here we are dealing with amendments to a Bill designed to privatise the British Transport Docks Board.
6.45 pm
The idea that there should be a State majority holding is not simply part of the Opposition's ideological view that we should retain control. I would argue that case if it were necessary, but it is the Government's declared objective to maintain a majority shareholding. On Second Reading in January the Government made it clear that there was no lasting commitment to the principle of a majority shareholding. It was only in Committee that the Government attempted to justify the view that they had no commitment to hold a 51 per cent. share even temporarily.
Reading through the statements made in the press by Ministers and others, and by the trade unions, one sees that the Government's reason for maintaining a 51 per cent. holding was their desire to retain a happy mix of ports. Indeed, that reflected what was said in earlier debates, and it was certainly the understanding of the position that the trade unions gained from their meetings with the management of the BTDB.
We all know that the BTDB has a mix of highly specialised and general cargo ports, large and small, and that the group is successful, particularly in view of the crisis now facing the docks industry. The advantage of having a happy mix is that one is able to carry those ports having a difficult time because of a decline in a certain type of traffic. My own port of Hull is an example. In such a mix, some ports will be making a profit while others are having a less fortunate time. We readily accept the happy mix argument, but we do not think that such an arrangement should be limited to 12 months or 18 months, or two years. It is an arrangement that should not be broken. As I understand it, the Government themselves accept that argument for the selling of the first 49 per cent. of the shares.
The other reasons for retaining control are connected with the associated legislative problems and having a holding company so that it is easier to make acquisitions without going through the statutory obligations. This is what is known as the Felixstowe formula. We have heard of the influence of European Ferries. This is another example of the influence of the hon. Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden). Felixstowe was the only example of a holding company taking over a public asset that was maintained by statutory provisions. That example has been copied on a grander scale for the BTDB.
Another reason that the Government gave for wishing to retain a majority was that they wanted to prevent control going to organisations whose interests might be the breaking up of the company itself.
All those are legitimate reasons why we believe that the Government should continue to maintain a majority share. I now come to what we find controversial. On Second Reading the Government said that they wanted to keep 51 per cent. for longer than the short term that is now indicated—12 months, or whatever it is. Presumably, what determines the Government's view of the amount of time required is how successfully the first tranche of 49 per cent. is sold. Presumably, the Government will then consider whether to sell some part of the remaining 51 per


cent. As this is the acquisition of money by the sale of public assets, and as the Treasury clearly desires to acquire more and more money, the Government must be under pressure to sell anything that makes money, and this is a demonstration of that policy.
But I am bound to say that we should put on record here, as Sir Humphrey Browne, the chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, made clear in his minutes to the trade unions on 26 March meeting—I will not quote them because they have been quoted on a number of occasions in Committee—it was made clear, and it certainly seemed to be the view of the unions involved, that the Government would hold their 51 per cent. share, and certainly it was not necessarily envisaged that that would be for a short time.
Therefore, on 14 February, after the Second Reading debate, and certainly after the meeting of March 1980, when the Minister often said that his Second Reading speech came after March 1980 and therefore that was the more relevant statement to take into account—perhaps they decided to get some form of co-operation with the unions. To a certain extent that seemed to be achieved. As earlier, with the British Rail assets, they were convinced that one could acquire control with 30, 40 or 50 per cent., in the case of the BTDB they thought that their interests would be protected with a 51 per cent. holding, but that clearly has not been so. At any rate, it is our judgement that that will not be so.
What is more relevant is the fact that the paper that was circulated from the British Transport Docks Board on 14 February to all Committee members made it quite clear. It said that
the Board welcome the Government's assurance of a 51 per cent. interest as an ultimate safeguard against the domination of a single port user. Domination would be damaging to the business and to port users generally.
That is a very clear statement why the board thinks that 51 per cent. should be retained. We feel that those interests are better served by keeping its assets in public ownership, but we think that it is a far better proposition to keep a 51 per cent. shareholding rather than a minority shareholding.
That, basically, is our position. We are confirmed in that when one bears in mind the fact that the Government's intention—indeed, the purpose of this guillotine—is to rush the Bill through with the express purpose of obtaining money as quickly as possible. That is what the guillotine is about. It is nothing to do with filibusters. It is about how quickly we can get the Bill through before the summer, so that the prospectus can be launched to to the market and the money can be acquired. There is no doubt on the Labour Benches that that is the intention of the Minister. In all honesty, he probably admits to that as a policy—that the Government would sooner have the money in their pocket as quickly as possible, rather than hang about.
But I think it is clear—it is the view of many Labour Members looking at the various papers that have been exchanged between the BTDB, the Government and the unions—that the trade unions were clearly under the impression—as we were—that the Government meant to retain a majority shareholding. We think that the justifications put forward by the Minister for retaining the 51 per cent. are right, and are not limited by a time factor alone. We readily accept that the Government cannot give a time factor beyond their own period of office, but the Government are saying that they give a commitment of less than that. There will be only a 12-month period before

the 49 per cent. is sold, and then we shall embark upon the second tranche of selling involving the 51 per cent. that remains in the hands of the Government.
Whatever proportion the Government decide to release, the first dilemma will inevitably arise from the fact that if the company wishes to raise money and the Government are not prepared to assist, and will offer only the prospect of a further share issue being agreed to, it will water down the proportion of shares held by the Government, certainly if they are voting shares. So even the 51 per cent. is not necessarily guaranteed if the Government do nothing. There is no guarantee unless the Government say "We will not allow any more than 49 per cent. of the shares of this company to be acquired by private interests."
That is the view that we hold. We have expressed it in regard to the shares here and we have said that in the nomination of those shares it should be made absolutely clear that the majority of the shares will be retained by the Government.
In conclusion, I would say that our concern is not only over action about minority interests, as we saw in the case of the Liverpool affair—though we will come to that on a later amendment. The possibility is that there will be a subsidiary development, which could lead to a break-up at the ports. I have received a letter from the Minister about the point that I raised in Committee, on the question whether it was possible for a port authority to go in with another holding company, separate off one of the docks and set up a separate port company.
We fear that that may happen. The Minister admits that that is a possibility, though he does not feel that it would interfere with the docks scheme. I suggested to him that if he did that he would be lighting a powder keg. I am bound to tell the Minister that his assurance is not very comforting, seeing that he has already brought before the House a Bill that directly intervenes in the scheme system by differentiating between the various redundancy schemes. No one any longer believes that he will not interfere with the scheme, whatever his declared intentions are. But no doubt we shall have opportunities to debate those points at later stages, after the recess.
Our amendment is clear. We believe that if the Bill is accepted in its present form it will mean the denationalisation of the British Transport Docks Board. The provision requiring the Minister, on his own judgment, to retain a majority shareholding is there for the security of the maintenance of these 19 ports. We feel that that is necessary to the life of the ports, and therefore we seek by the amendment to make sure that the Government do not intend to back down on their promise. We are moving the amendment tonight to correct the position.

Mr. James Hill: We went into this problem of the 51–49 per cent. shareholding several times in Committee, so there is no reason to suppose that the debate will go on for overlong this evening.
In the Second Reading debate I said that both the British Transport Docks Board management and the unions were speaking as one in their inclination in favour of a maximum spread of shares into as many hands as possible, and in Committee my hon. and learned Friend gave me hope that if he gave a very favourable share issue scheme to employees in the ports it could well come out of the 51 per cent. Government holding. I was perfectly satisfied


with that, because I think that the flotation will be a tremendous success if as many hands as possible end up owning shares.
To my mind, the dangers that are being spread by the Opposition—that there may be some vile person who will get hold of large blocks of these shares, or may even form some consortium to hive off a port—would become as dust, as it were, if the shares were spread as thinly as possible throughout all those who are interested in shipping, and particularly the employees in the 19 ports.
I said in Committee, and I say it again tonight, because I would like further confirmation—though he virtually confirmed it on the Transport (No. 2) Bill the other evening—that when my hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend sit down to work out the flotation scheme for the shares—and there will obviously be a very involved discussion—the allocation of shares to the work force may follow very much the line adopted in the British Aerospace flotation, when the shares were on offer for sale to the public at between 48·37 and 50 per cent. of the issued ordinary shares of British Aerospace.
The scheme there was almost a reward for the success that British Aerospace had had, and I hope that there will be equal reward for the success that the British Transport Docks Board—now Associated British Ports—has had. It has done remarkably good trading, showing incredibly good profits. Consequently, we should like to think, certainly on the Government side of the House, that a favourable employee share scheme can be evolved.
I remind my hon. and learned Friend—I believe that he has the figures in front of his eyes now—that all eligible employees of British Aerospace are being offered 33 free shares, worth about £50, under the British Aerospace share ownership scheme. In addition, the Government arranged for a total of approximately 2 million shares to be made available to eligible employees for the purchase at the offer price. For each share purchased the employee will receive another free share, up to the maximum of 600 shares per employee, subject, of course, to scaling down if the total applied for exceeds the number available.
7 pm
To put the matter in a nutshell, there was a £50 bonus for good results, plus an incredibly generous one-for-one free offer, and I think that the flotation for British Aerospace was an enormous success. It was over-subcribed, I believe, something like four or five times. If my right hon. and learned Friend gets this flotation right, clearly this, too, will be a tremendous success.
The doubt that has cropped up in many people's minds arises from the fact that the whole of the structure—the flotation—has of necessity to be done after the Bill is enacted. I understand that. It is not much good setting up a flotation scheme if we are not sure that the Bill will be accepted by both Houses of Parliament. The other evening my hon. and learned Friend gave me the strong impression that the thoughts that I have reiterated, perhaps too often, were useful.
If we respect the work force and want to involve it, and if we do not want consortia to take over, or one shipping company virtually to dictate the entire policy of 19 ports, this is the most painless and equitable way of dealing with the flotation.
The amendment tinkers with what, after all, will be a matter of consultation when the flotation is made. Once the Bill becomes an Act, the less interference with the market place and the mechanism that must switch into operation, the better. At this stage it is essential to have the minimum of Government intervention. We are to have this 51 per cent., or perhaps a little less, if the share issue is generous to the employees. I repeat that to my mind employees mean everyone who obtains a livelihood from the 19 ports. Then the public would not feel that the docks labour force meant a restricted number of people.
In the case of Southampton, where there are 1,700 stevedores, I should like to think that all the ancillary workers within the port, probably numbering 4,000 or 5,000, would be eligible not only for the free share issue of £50 but for the one-for-one free issue if they were prepared to put their money into their own place of work. I am sure that most of them will, and that the flotation will be an enormous success.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: As someone who was not a member of the Committee, I want to say a few words on the matter, and also to ask a few questions.
If we are to sell the shares in the British Transport Docks Board, I agree that the first priority for such sale should be the people who work in the docks, be they dockers, stevedores, or ancillary workers. A substantial part of the shareholding should be allocated to them. I am not sure that the British Aerospace scheme is a particularly generous one. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) appeared to consider the scheme full of generosity. A £50 gift of shares to each employee does not seem generous. I should like to see that amount substantially increased if there is eventually to be a sale of shares, which clearly there will be.
I read in my local newspaper that there is to be a free gift of shares, but I do not know whether an official announcement has been made. I have tried to find out whether the Minister made such an announcement. The newspaper says that there is to be a £50 allocation of shares to each port employee, plus a one-for-one scheme after that. Perhaps the Minister will tell me when he announced the scheme. I hope that the Minister will not go back on it now, because once such a scheme has been announced—indeed, once it has been read about by all my port employees—if the Minister goes back on his announcement it will cause the Government a great deal of trouble.
I assume that some have prior knowledge of these matters and that the scheme will go through. I hope that a minimum of a £50 gift and then a one-for-one scheme will be carried out. I should like to see a better scheme than that. I hope that when the Minister replies—

Mr. Hill: rose——

Mr. Mitchell: I shall not give way. I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman when he was speaking, so perhaps I may continue.
I know that in a sense this matter arises on the next amendment, but one of the big fears of both employees and management is that no one group gets hold of the BTDB. If a shipping companies' consortium, which is dealt with in the next admendment, or any other group could obtain a large enough block of shares it might be able to direct


and influence policy. That would be a dangerous situation. If a large finance company bought a large block of shares it could direct the operations of the ports.
I submit that it is essential that in the British Transport Docks Board we have a professional management. We may query its decisions from time to time. All of us have done so. Nevertheless, on balance the BTDB has good professional management. I should not like to see that management unduly influenced by outside commercial interests. I hope to hear an assurance on that issue.
I have two technical matters to raise. If we are to have, as I understand is to be the case, according to the Press, the employee participation scheme, does that come out of the 51 per cent. or out of the 49 per cent? Does it come from the 49 per cent. available to everyone, or is it the Government's intention to take it out of the 51 per cent?
Secondly, will the employee participation shareholding be a voting or a non-voting shareholding? If it is to be a voting shareholding, there is a strong case for it. To have voting shareholders consisting of those who actually work inside the industry will mean that we are moving slowly towards the idea of worker participation or even worker control of the industry. I suspect that the shares to be held by employees will not be granted a vote.
I therefore ask the Minister, first, is there to be an employees participation scheme, as announced in my local newspaper? What is the scheme to be? Is it to be similar to the miserable British Aerospace scheme, or will it be a better scheme? Will the shares be voting or non-voting, and will they come out of the 51 per cent. or the 49 per cent?

Mr. Cowans: I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). He made great play about having a good story, and he implied that he should tell that story. I remind him that Hans Christian Andersen had a number of good stories and continued to tell them, but they were all fairy tales. When I listened to the hon. Member, I was reminded of those fairy tales, because every worry that he had was still inherent in spite of the nod from the Minister on the Front Bench. Nods do not remove fears. It is quite possible to have a workers' share scheme with non-voting rights which gives the workers very little control over their own destiny.
Amendment No. 11 was dealt with adequately by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), because it sought to retain the 51 per cent. There is, however, another aspect of that. If the hon. Member for Test cares to cast his mind back over the reports of the 60 or so Committee sittings he will recall that there were great deliberations concerning the fact that, having retained 51 per cent., the Government, via the Minister—these great upholders of the taxpayer's purse, these watchers over the public interest and over the taxpayer's money—were not even going to put in directors.
Therefore, it follows as night follows day that even though 51 per cent. of the shares is retained, the tail will wag the dog in the sense of the other, private capital, because directors will not be put in to have their say. The fact that directors will not be put in means that there will be virtually no control, although lip service is paid to the fact that there will be a 51 per cent. retention.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: May I take up the point about the people who describe themselves as

watchdogs of the public purse? Apart from the Minister, there are merely four hon. Members present on the Government side who, one might say, are in the position of being watchdogs. In an important issue like this one would have thought that on both sides of the Chamber—although we on this side have the greater representation—more hon. Members should be taking an interest.

Mr. Cowans: My hon. Friend adds even greater validity to my point. At least, those few hon. Members are listening, but if directors are not put in there will not be anyone who can listen. It is Conservative Members who are supposed to be looking after the taxpayer's purse and concerned about public expenditure, yet when they have the opportunity they do not put directors in to safeguard that interest. That is the morality of the situation.
Amendment No. 11 seeks to go further than my hon. Friend, because it refers to
a majority of the voting shares
being
retained by the Secretary of State".
I am well aware that the retention by the Secretary of State of the voting shares does not make him go along with our ideas, because he has already said that he will not put any directors in. He wants the private sector—the minority shareholder—to run the business. If he does not exercise his right with the 51 per cent. of voting shares we shall see clearly where the blame lies. It is important that we should recognise this and even more important that people outside should be aware of the paper-thin case that the Minister makes for keeping the 51 per cent. but not exercising control. The constituents of the hon. Member for Test and of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell), the people who work in the industry, will be keenly interested in the fact that the 51 per cent. holding will give no control whatever.
There is nothing in the Bill to prevent any person from buying up the remainder. It would have been more appropriate if those who are so worried that they are shedding crocodile tears about the workers in the industry had exerted their influence to make the Government undertake their obligation and put in directors. The private interests could buy up the minority holding, and because directors are not put in those private interests will be in charge.
Perhaps at last, after a long period, we might by some quirk of fate touch the Minister into saying that he will put in directors and will exercise his obligation to the House and to the country to look after the money and watch over our interests while he retains the 51 per cent.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: I wish to say a few words about the amendment and the clause. It is obvious that once again, by their stealth, the Government are stealing the plums from our nationalised industries on every possible occasion. The clause does not say that they will take over all the docks throughout the country; they will take over only one or two. That is the implication. The best will be taken over. Those that are not too good will be left for nationalised industry to look after.
It is obvious what the Government are doing for their friends. In every Bill that comes before the House affecting the nationalised industries they are making certain that they can take away from those industries the


subsidiaries and parts that it is worth while for private enterprise to run because they can be profitable. That is the ultimate determination of the Government in almost every sector of the nationalised industries, and here we get it again, in this case with the docks. It is disgraceful. It is suggested that the Secretary of State will retain a 51 per cent. holding but that there is to be no responsibility on the part of the work force about how the docks are to be run.
The country is suffering from bad relationships between management and the work force. There is nothing that we can expect from the Government that will encourage improved industrial relations. Why do they not seize every opportunity to improve industrial relations in the docks? It is because they are not interested. They think of turning over the plums to private enterprise so that their friends will make a profit, and the rest of the industry does not matter. Hon. Members on the Government side may smile when I say that, but it is disgraceful that on every possible occasion the Government seek to take away from the nationalised industries the most profitable sectors.
What guarantee shall we have? If the shares are sold to a company, possibly to a multinational company—[An Hon. Member: "Tiny Rowland."]—which takes over, what power will the Secretary of State have? What worries me is how the Secretary of State decides what is to happen. I do not think that he will have any power to decide. He will make certain that this section of the docks will be run solely by private enterprise, no matter who it is or to whom it belongs, and, therefore, the rest of the docks which are not profitable will be the responsibility of the State, so that the Government can denigrate nationalisation in every possible instance. They are doing it on every occasion when a Bill involving a nationalsed industry comes before the House.
I would not have spoken, but this sort of thing is direct proof that the Government are looking after a section of our society and are not too troubled about society as a whole. In my opinion they ought on every occasion to try to make certain that we improve the relationship between management and the work force so that we can have greater efficiency and greater production, and a more efficient running of our industries. But here, once again, they make certain that we carry on with our present method, which really is a disgrace to our nation. Industry in this country is probably the worst run of all the industries of Western European nations.
I will say no more, but I hope that the Government will make certain that the amendment is not agreed to, and that they return to a more reasonable attitude towards the dockyards.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute or two, but there is one question that I want to put to the Minister. First, I support the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) and Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill). If there is a workers' shareholding scheme in this I am all for it, but it has to be spelt out, and we would like to know tonight, if possible.
Is it possible for Associated British Ports to purchase the holdings of British Rail port authorities that are covered by clause 2? I am very concerned about what may happen to places like Fishbourne, in the Isle of Wight, if

it happens to get sold off to somebody who is very bloody-minded. It is important that Sealink services and, for that matter, any shipping line, should have good relationships with the ports to which it is delivering its passengers and its goods. If these are hived off in all sorts of different directions some very odd things may happen, and the people who will suffer will be the local residents—the consumers, so to speak—who will be taken to the cleaners. I should like to know whether that transaction is possible.
Apart from that, I welcome the idea that there is to be a scheme; I hope that there will be a scheme and that the dockyard workers and everybody in Southampton and the other ports will have a chance to own shares.

Mr. Sheerman: I appreciate that the Liberal Party is interested in workers' participation and schemes for share ownership, but does not the hon. Member agree with me and with other Opposition Members that if we are going to have workers' participation we should not con the workers? It has to be a meaningful share participation; not just the ownership of shares, with no real participation in the work of the company. The participation should include a voice on the board. At the moment we see a large amount of Government participation that calls itself participation but provides no power on the board, and nothing but paper share-ownership.

Mr. Ross: I share the hon. Gentleman's views. That is why I asked for the position to be spelt out when the Minister replied. I feel that the 51 per cent. holding by the State is probably right, but I can be converted on that.

Mr. Hill: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that every shareholder should have exactly the representation that his shares entitle him to? If 2 per cent. are sold to employees their representation should be the same as that of any other shareholders with equal amounts.

Mr. Ross: I have never held shares in my life, so I am not an expert on the subject. All that I am trying to say is that it must be a meaningful block that goes to those workers, and they must be given the opportunity to purchase. If they do not take up the shares I accept that that is their fault, but it must be a large enough block, it must be well advertised, and the workers must know what their opportunity is.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We covered the 51 per cent. point frequently in Committee. I have to begin by saying that I dealt with it often enough in Committee for our position to be clear. Throughout there has been clarity about our policy towards the British Transport Docks Board.
First, on the point raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), we recognise that the British Transport Docks Board has been a highly successful business and that it has a well balanced collection of ports at the moment. There is no intention whatever of breaking up or disrupting the present business. We achieve that in the Bill by ensuring that it re-emerges as a new entity—the new statutory corporation to be known as Associated British Ports. That will remain one business. It will be the obvious successor to the British Transport Docks Board and will be a statutory corporation, with all its powers and duties set out in the Bill. Our first aim was not in any way to break up or damage the present successful track record of the board.
The second aim was to denationalise the company in order to obtain for it the advantages of the private sector,


which at the moment it is denied. I know that we do not have time this evening to go over the full ideological debate. There is a gap between us. I am not able to understand why sections of the Labour Party regard it still as such a shibboleth that major trading undertakings of this kind should be nationalised within the State sector. There are limitations so long as companies remain in the public sector, because of ministerial involvement in key decision-making, and there are also limitations because of the Treasury controls over access to private capital for investment and for other purposes that do not date merely from this Government but that in their present form were introduced by the Labour Government in 1976 and that will inevitably be exercised by any Government over the private sector.
So, in order to denationalise this company and to make it take on the character of a private sector company henceforth, we are making Associated British Ports, the statutory corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of a Companies Act holding company. That holding company will be set up on the appointed day by the Secretary of State, but the denationalisation will come when he sells—we hope later this year—49 per cent. of his shareholding in the company. He will sell only 49 per cent. of his shareholding, but at that point the company will become a private sector company, because we have made it clear that although he will continue to retain a 51 per cent. holding he will not appoint directors and he will not seek to exercise control; it will be a dormant holding following the precedents of British Petroleum and other companies in the past.
The 51 per cent. is merely the holding that the Government will retain, and the retention of that 51 per cent. does not affect the basic position of the holding company, which is that control over the company will pass from my right hon. Friend and the Government to the private sector investors who acquire an interest.
At the moment, the precise timing and form of that flotation or sale of the shares has not been determined; we hope to get on to it in the reasonably near future but I am not at the moment in a position to announce exactly when we will produce the prospectus, or how we will dispose of the 49 per cent. interest. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), and also the hon. Members for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell), Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and other hon. Members that the Government are favourably disposed to the idea of employee shareholdings.
The major flotation that has occurred so far in this Government's policy of denationalising and giving these great trading companies access to private capital is the flotation of British Aerospace. I cannot commit myself at the moment to say that if we float later this year we shall follow exactly the British Aerospace pattern, but that flotation itself was a Government-inspired and controlled flotation. Certainly, we welcomed the opportunity to give employees the chance to participate in the company in that flotation, and if the opportunity occurs with the British Transport Docks Board we would obviously prefer to do that.
I am talking at the moment about the disposal of a 49 per cent. interest in the holding company. If, when we dispose of that interest, it proves practicable to do so, within that 49 per cent. I would hope that a reasonable and acceptable shareholding scheme for employees can be devised.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the Minister saying that he has not decided at this moment to give a £50 free shareholding to each port employee? My local newspaper reported that he had so decided. Is he now telling me that he has not yet decided that?

Mr. Clarke: I am saying that we have not decided that. I do not read the Southampton newspapers with the regularity that I should. I have not given any interviews to the Southampton newspapers, either. What I can say is that we would hope that, if it proved possible, there would be a generous and reasonable employee shareholding scheme when the flotation took place.
The British Aerospace shareholding scheme has proved to be perfectly well worth looking at. That was Government flotation. It was the first company in the held in terms of denationalisation. If there is an employee shareholding scheme, as I hope there will be, it is not the case that employees will, have a lesser quality of shares—non-voting shares as opposed to voting shares, for instance, which was the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowans). The rules applying to employee shareholdings specify that one should not have a particular category of shares confined to the employee with different voting rights as compared to other shareholders. We would expect that any employee shareholding scheme, if it proved possible to set one up, would provide participation absolutely on a basis of equality with other shareholders.

Mr. Cowans: The Minister has raised an important point. As he is a member of the legal profession, I could not ask anyone better to answer this question. In a hypothetical case, whilst the Government own 51 per cent. of the shares in the holding company and do not put in directors, if the holding company breaks the law who is responsible, given the fact that the Government are the largest shareholder, at 51 per cent., even though they do not exercise their option?

Mr. Clarke: I will not go into hypothetical questions about what would happen if the company breaks the law. Normally, if a company breaks the law that company is liable, and directors who took an executive role in any criminal or unlawful acts may well be liable, but the shareholders are not liable to find themselves in the dock for any unlawful activities on the part of the company.
Given the track record of the British Transport Docks Board, I do not think that the prospects of its breaking the law should loom large in our discussions this evening. In fact, it is likely to be a responsible and successful business. I have already said that if employee shareholdings come in, as I hope they will, we shall not have a separate category of non-voting shares for the employees.
The amendment deals with the question of voting and non-voting shares. No final decisions have yet been taken about the financial structure of the holding company when it is set up. Subsection (2) gives the Secretary of State wide powers to determine the financial structure when it is created, and we expect that a mixture of shares and securities will be created to meet the needs of the moment and, in particular, the needs of the holding company and the needs of the flotation.
Non-voting shares are now rather unpopular. It is not very often that one gets them in the private sector. Again,


we have not determined the final financial structure, but I think that I would not be going too far if I said that I should be surprised if we had any non-voting shares at all when we set up the holding company on the appointed day later this year. It is more likely that we shall have one category of voting share only. We would dispose as soon as reasonably possible of 49 per cent. of whatever shares are eventually created.
I would make it clear, as I tried to make it clear in Committee, that for the forseeable future we accept that we have undertaken to retain 51 per cent. My right hon. Friend has an understanding with the British Transport Docks Board—an understanding that has been transmitted to the work force—that the present policy of the Government is to retain 51 per cent. It shows our continuing confidence in the business. It will help to ensure continuity, and so on. I understand that the assurance has been generally welcomed by both sides of the docks industry.
Where we differ from the Opposition—we differ again on the amendment, which is merely a fresh way for the Opposition to put their point—is that we are not undertaking to bind our successors for all time. It is not that we are planning at any early stage to start moving on and selling off any of our 51 per cent. In all the explanations that I have given I recall no occasion on which I have indicated that after, for instance, 12 months we might be moving on to sell a second tranche of shares.
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, that is not our present intention. At the moment our plans are to retain 51 per cent. for substantially longer than 12 months. As I said on Second Reading, there is no special merit about the figure 51 per cent. It is quite unnecessary to bind our successors, and we certainly do not want rigid statutory rules laid down. If the flotation is a success, I visualise that in a few years' time everbody on the British Transport Docks Board will be totally relaxed on the question of how great an interest the Government want, and nobody will see the tremendous idealogical problems and political fears that are now being expressed by the Opposition.
However, other circumstances might arise in which any Government—this Government or any successor Government—did not want to retain 51 per cent. Let me cite examples that I have already given. Let us suppose that the new company wishes to raise capital by offering a rights issue to its existing shareholders. The Government of the day may not wish to take up such a rights issue, and inevitably their 51 per cent. holding will drop. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Test is always pressing, a situation may arise in which the Government wish to impose or enlarge the employee shareholding scheme. It may well be that any such later improvement will come out of the Government's 51 per cent. holding, as opposed to the 49 per cent.
We do not wish to bind our successors. We see no need to do so. We see no need for statutory requirements. It is our policy to retain 51 per cent. for the foreseeable future, but the 51 per cent. will not be used by my right hon. Friend in such a way as to exercise control over the company. It will be a private sector company, free from ministerial controls and from Treasury restraints over access to capital. Nevertheless, it will be a statutory corporation essential to the British ports and will be the

natural successor to the British Transport Docks Board. I believe that it will have the success that the BTDB had in the past. In fact, I believe that the possibilities of success are improved by the policy change we are putting forward. The fears in the docks are groundless. I hope that this debate has helped to clarify the position and make it clear that arguments about 51 per cent. are particularly wide of the practical point.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 293.

Division No. 157]
[7.37 pm


Abse, Leo
Field, Frank


Adams, Allen
Fitt, Gerard


Allaun, Frank
Flannery, Martin


Anderson, Donald
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ford, Ben


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Forrester, John


Ashton, Joe
Foster, Derek


Atkinson, N.(H'gey,)
Foulkes, George


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)
George, Bruce


Bradley, Tom
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ginsburg, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Golding, John


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Gourlay, Harry


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Graham, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ian
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Canavan, Dennis
Haynes, Frank


Cant, R. B.
Heffer, Eric S.


Carmichael, Neil
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Home Robertson, John


Cartwright, John
Homewood, William


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hooley, Frank


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Cohen, Stanley
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Coleman, Donald
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
John, Brynmor


Cook, Robin F.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Cowans, Harry
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Craigen, J. M.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cryer, Bob
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kerr, Russell


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lambie, David


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Lamborn, Harry


Davidson, Arthur
Lamond, James


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Leighton, Ronald


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Deakins, Eric
Litherland, Robert


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Dixon, Donald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dobson, Frank
McElhone, Frank


Dormand, Jack
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Dubs, Alfred
McKelvey, William


Duffy, A. E. P.
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dunn, James A.
McMahon, Andrew


Dunnett, Jack
McNally, Thomas


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
McNamara, Kevin


Eadie, Alex
McTaggart, Robert


Eastham, Ken
McWilliam, John


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Magee, Bryan


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Marks, Kenneth


English, Michael
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Evans, John (Newton)
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)






Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Sever, John


Meacher, Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Short, Mrs Renée


Mikardo, Ian
Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)


Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Snape, Peter


Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)
Spriggs, Leslie


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stallard, A. W.


Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Newens, Stanley
Stoddart, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Stott, Roger


Ogden, Eric
Straw, Jack


O'Halloran, Michael
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Palmer, Arthur
Tilley, John


Parker, John
Tinn, James


Parry, Robert
Torney, Tom


Pavitt, Laurie
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Pendry, Tom
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Watkins, David


Prescott, John
Weetch, Ken


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wellbeloved, James


Race, Reg
Welsh, Michael


Radice, Giles
White, Frank R.


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Richardson, Jo
Whitlock, William


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Robertson, George
Winnick, David


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Woodall, Alec


Rooker, J. W.
Woolmer, Kenneth


Roper, John
Young, David (Bolton E)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryman, John
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. George Morton.


Sandelson, Neville





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)


Alison, Michael
Browne, John (Winchester)


Alton, David
Bruce-Gardyne, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bryan, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Alick


Arnold, Tom
Buck, Antony


Aspinwall, Jack
Budgen, Nick


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Burden, Sir Frederick


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Butcher, John


Baker, Kenneth(St. M'bone)
Butler, Hon Adam


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Banks, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Beith, A. J.
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Bell, Sir Ronald
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Churchill, W. S.


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Clegg, Sir Walter


Best, Keith
Cockeram, Eric


Bevan, David Gilroy
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cope, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cormack, Patrick


Blackburn, John
Corrie, John


Blaker, Peter
Costain, Sir Albert


Body, Richard
Cranborne, Viscount


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Critchley, Julian


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Bowden, Andrew
Dickens, Geoffrey


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dorrell, Stephen


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dover, Denshore


Bright, Graham
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Brinton, Tim
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Brittan, Leon
Durant, Tony


Brotherton, Michael
Dykes, Hugh





Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Eggar, Tim
Lester, Jim (Beeston)


Elliott, Sir William
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)


Eyre, Reginald
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairgrieve, Russell
Loveridge, John


Faith, Mrs Sheila
Luce, Richard


Farr, John
Lyell, Nicholas


Fenner, Mrs Peggy
McCrindle, Robert


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Macfarlane, Neil


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John


Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)
MacKay, John (Argyll)


Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles
Macmillan, Rt Hon M.


Fookes, Miss Janet
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Forman, Nigel
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
McQuarrie, Albert


Fox, Marcus
Madel, David


Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Major, John


Freud, Clement
Marland, Paul


Fry, Peter
Marlow, Tony


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mather, Carol


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mawby, Ray


Goodhart, Philip
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Patrick


Gow, Ian
Mellor, David


Gower, Sir Raymond
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gray, Hamish
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Greenway, Harry
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Grieve, Percy
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Monro, Hector


Grist, Ian
Montgomery, Fergus


Grylls, Michael
Moore, John


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mudd, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Murphy, Christopher


Hannam, John
Myles, David


Haselhurst, Alan
Neale, Gerrard


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Paul
Neubert, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Tony


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Heddle, John
Nott, Rt Hon John


Henderson, Barry
Onslow, Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Osborn, John


Hill, James
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hooson, Tom
Parkinson, Cecil


Hordern, Peter
Parris, Matthew


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Howells, Geraint
Pawsey, James


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Penhaligon, David


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Percival, Sir Ian


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Pollock, Alexander


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Jessel, Toby
Proctor, K. Harvey


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Raison, Timothy


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Kimball, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R.


King, Rt Hon Tom
Renton, Tim


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Knox, David
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lamont, Norman
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lang, Ian
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lee, John
Rossi, Hugh


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rost, Peter






Royle, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Scott, Nicholas
Trippier, David


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard
Waddington, David


Shersby, Michael
Wakeham, John


Silvester, Fred
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Sims, Roger
Walker, B. (Perth)


Skeet, T. H. H.
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Smith, Dudley
Wall, Patrick


Speller, Tony
Waller, Gary


Spence, John
Walters, Dennis


Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watson, John


Sproat, Iain
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Stainton, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Stanley, John
Whitney, Raymond


Stevens, Martin
Wickenden, Keith


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Wilkinson, John


Stokes, John
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Stradling Thomas, J.
Winterton, Nicholas


Tapsell, Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Norman
Younger, Rt Hon George


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Donald
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Robert Boscawen.


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)



Thornton, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 13 in page 5, line 44, at end insert—
'(9) Directions given by the Secretary of State under this section to Associated British Ports or the Holding Company shall be in writing.
(10) The first report prepared by the directors of the Holding Company under section 157 of the Companies Act 1948 after the appointed day shall contain a statement of every direction given by the Secretary of State under this section.'.
This amendment has been tabled following an undertaking that I gave to the Standing Committee. It will ensure that all directions given under the clause will be in writing and will be printed in the annual report of the company.

Mr. Prescott: We appreciate that the Minister has adopted what we suggested in Committee, although our amendment there was somewhat indefinite, and was too narrowly directed. The Minister told us then that the Bill covered other powers and directions that the Minister would be prepared to cover in the annual report. Presumably, he will have information about these directions and their consequences, because there is considerable power to change the capital structure and status of the company, and the power to be exercised before the annual report is published. In those circumstances, much of the information about the directions will presumably be embodied in the prospectus of the company when it is launched.
I should like to discuss the quality of the information to be included in the annual report. In Committee we were concerned with the Government's interpretation of the appropriate time for flotation. In the last debate we discussed the question whether it should be within 12 months and whether the second tranche should come a little later than that. We shall wait to see what happens. Here we are concerned with the situation when the

Government's desire to sell off assets and acquire money conflicts with the company's commercial judgment. I am addressing myself to the British Transport Docks Board, but the principle is relevant to the British Rail companies and their subsidiaries, where similar considerations may arise. Directions given to these companies are also to be published in annual reports.
I am here concerned with a matter that is directly a question of principle. The management concerned may wish to sell shares 12 months or even two years later than the Government propose. Clearly, the timing will be reflected in the price of the shares and the value of the company. The financial package involved in the selling of shares at the end of this year or next year may be less in the interests of the company than selling in two years, because of the earning possibilities of the company and the other factors that were mentioned in Committee.
If it is the view of the company, presumably backed by its accountants, that to float the company at this stage or to be forced to accept financial arrangements at this stage is against the best interests, and that considerably more benefit would be derived by acting in 18 months, will that view be recorded in the annual report, so that the taxpayer may judge? Such a difference might be considerable. A subsidiary might even lose money by acting now rather than in 18 months. The Minister will recognise that that principle is applicable to all the subsidiaries being considered for privatisation.

Mr. Cowans: I do not want to detain the House, and I appreciate that the Minister has moved the amendment in response to what was said in Committee, but there is one item that concerns me. The Bill refers to the first report that is prepared by the directors of the holding company, but what of the subsequent reports? If the Minister can clear that up I shall be satisfied with the amendment.

Mr. Clarke: We are talking about the first annual report, because we are talking about directions given under the clause by my right hon. Friend and they all relate to the new financial structure of the holding company. They are all directions given upon the creation of the company. Therefore, we expect that they will all have been used, as it were, before the first annual report is prepared. The amendment is to ensure that all these directions are in writing and that they are published in the first annual report.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was right to say that by that time the information would be of limited interest, because it would have already appeared. We expect that the flotation of the company will take place reasonably quickly after the appointed day when the holding company is created. If a flotation occurs, a prospectus will have to be issued, and that will contain full information about the financial structure of the company and the directions under which it is operating. That prospectus will contain more valuable information than the annual report could.
With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept that the amendment implements our undertaking in Committee and goes rather further than the amendment that the Opposition then moved.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East asked me to deal with another and more serious point. He asked what would happen if there were differing judgments about the best timing of the flotation. I do not think that


that is likely to arise, particularly in the case of the British Transport Docks Board. On the appointed day the holding company will be wholly owned by my right hon. Friend. We are talking about the time at which he will sell 49 per cent. of the shares in the company.
The main interest in the safeguarding of that sale of 49 per cent. is the taxpayer rather than the British Transport Docks Board. We are talking about the value that will be obtained from the sale. Therefore, my right hon. Friend will be responsible primarily to the House and the general public for ensuring that he gets the best return on the sale of the shareholding. I can assure the House that we are of course mindful of the interests of the taxpayer and that it is our intention to create a company of a set financial structure and to choose the timing of the flotation in such a way as to get the best possible return for the assets for the taxpayer. With British Rail subsidiaries there could be conflicts of interest. We expect that British Rail Investments Limited will time the flotation so as to get the best return for its assets. On the other hand, it understands as well as we do the need for rapid progress on this policy. We would make directions only if it failed to make that progress. I have no doubt that it would choose an early but best time to get the best value for its assets, because its interests are also affected and it wants the maximum return of funds to British Rail.
I have dealt with this matter rather more shortly than the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East did, and I hope that the House, given that assurance, will now accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

CONSTITUTION OF ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS, ETC.

Mr. Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) The Board of the Holding Company shall consist of two directors appointed by the Secretary of State and not less than 3 and not more than 11 determined by the Holding Company.'
We made it clear, earlier that the directors ought to be
appointed to the board, and this amendment reflects that wish. The Minister cited the precedent of British Petroleum, but he seems to have missed the fact that BP has directors appointed by the Government.
The principle of the amendment is clear and I shall not develop the argument. We feel that there should be representation on the board and that the formula should be similar to that for BP. We share that view, apparently, with the Secretary of State for Employment. This therefore seems to be an amendment that the Government could accept.

8 pm

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When the arrangements for British Petroleum were set up in the First World War there was concern about foreign naval or military policy implications which led to two Government directors being appointed. Important though the affairs of Southampton, Hull and other docks are, there are no great foreign policy or defence interests involved. At present we are not minded to appoint directors. We do not think that the public interest requires them. It would be a private sector company, not controlled by the Government, and would have considerable advantages from that arrangement.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 209, 300.

Division No. 158]
[8.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)


Adams, Allen
George, Bruce


Allaun, Frank
Ginsburg, David


Anderson, Donald
Golding, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Graham, Ted


Ashton, Joe
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Hardy, Peter


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Haynes, Frank


Bottomley, Rt Hon k.(M'b'ro)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bradley, Tom
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Homewood, William


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Campbell, Ian
John, Brynmor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Canavan, Dennis
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Cant, R. B.
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cartwright, John
Kerr, Russell


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lambie, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Lamborn, Harry


Coleman, Donald
Lamond, James


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Leighton, Ronald


Cook, Robin F.
Lestor, Miss Joan


Cowans, Harry
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Craigen, J. M.
Litherland, Robert


Crowther, J. S.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cunningham, Q. (Islington S)
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McKelvey, William


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
McMahon, Andrew


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McNally, Thomas


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dixon, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunn, James A.
Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)


Dunnett, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Meacher, Michael


Eadie, Alex
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


English, Michael
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Newens, Stanley


Ford, Ben
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Forrester, John
Ogden, Eric


Foster, Derek
O'Halloran, Michael


Foulkes, George
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Palmer, Arthur


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Parker, John






Parry, Robert
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Pavitt, Laurie
Stoddart, David


Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Prescott, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Race, Reg
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Radice, Giles
Tilley, John


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Tinn, James


Richardson, Jo
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wainwright, B.(Dearne V)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Watkins, David


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Weetch, Ken


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wellbeloved, James


Rooker, J. W.
Welsh, Michael


Roper, John
White, Frank R.


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Rowlands, Ted
Whitlock, William


Ryman, John
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)


Sever, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Short, Mrs Renée
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)
Woodall, Alec


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton E)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Walter Harrison and Mr. George Morton.


Stallard, A. W.





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Alison, Michael
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda


Alton, David
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chapman, Sydney


Ancram, Michael
Churchill, W. S.


Arnold, Tom
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Clegg, Sir Walter


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Cockeram, Eric


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Colvin, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cope, John


Banks, Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Corrie, John


Beith, A. J.
Costain, Sir Albert


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cranborne, Viscount


Bendall, Vivian
Critchley, Julian


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Best, Keith
Dover, Denshore


Bevan, David Gilroy
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Biggs-Davison, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Blackburn, John
Durant, Tony


Blaker, Peter
Dykes, Hugh


Body, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Elliott, Sir William


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Emery, Peter


Bowden, Andrew
Eyre, Reginald


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fairgrieve, Russell


Braine, Sir Bernard
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bright, Graham
Farr, John


Brinton, Tim
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Brittan, Leon
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bryan, Sir Paul
Forman, Nigel


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Buck, Antony
Fox, Marcus


Budgen, Nick
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Burden, Sir Frederick
Freud, Clement


Butcher, John
Fry, Peter


Butler, Hon Adam
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gardiner, George (Reigate)





Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marlow, Tony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marten, Neil (Banbury)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawby, Ray


Gorst, John
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gow, Ian
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mayhew, Patrick


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mellor, David


Gray, Hamish
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Grieve, Percy
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Mills, Peter (West Devon)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Miscampbell, Norman


Grist, Ian
Moate, Roger


Grylls, Michael
Monro, Hector


Hamilton, Hon A.
Montgomery, Fergus


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Moore, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Hawkins, Paul
Myles, David


Hawksley, Warren
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Heddle, John
Neubert, Michael


Henderson, Barry
Newton, Tony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Normanton, Tom


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nott, Rt Hon John


Hill, James
Onslow, Cranley


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Osborn, John


Hooson, Tom
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hordern, Peter
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Cecil


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)
Parris, Matthew


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Howells, Geraint
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Pawsey, James


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Penhaligon, David


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Percival, Sir Ian


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pollock, Alexander


Jessel, Toby
Porter, Barry


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Kershaw, Anthony
Raison, Timothy


Kilfedder, James A.
Rathbone, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


King, Rt Hon Tom
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Renton, Tim


Knox, David
Rhodes James, Robert


Lamont, Norman
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Lawrence, Ivan
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lee, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Le Marchant, Spencer
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Hugh


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rost, Peter


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Loveridge, John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Luce, Richard
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lyell, Nicholas
Shelton, William (Streatham)


McCrindle, Robert
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Neil
Shepherd, Richard


MacGregor, John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Silvester, Fred


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Skeet, T. H. H.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Smith, Dudley


McQuarrie, Albert
Speller, Tony


Madel, David
Spence, John


Major, John
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)






Sproat, Iain
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Stainton, Keith
Walker, B. (Perth)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Stanley, John
Wall, Patrick


Stevens, Martin
Waller, Gary


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Walters, Dennis


Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)
Ward, John


Stokes, John
Watson, John


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Tapsell, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wheeler, John


Tebbit, Norman
Whitney, Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wickenden, Keith


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Donald
Wilkinson, John


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wolfson, Mark


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trippier, David
Younger, Rt Hon George


Trotter, Neville



van Straubenzee, W. R.
Tellers for the Noes:


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Viggers, Peter



Waddington, David



Wakeham, John

Queston accordingly negatived.

It being after Eight o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [9 March] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Eight o' clock.

Clause 13

TRANSFER OF FUNCTION OF HOLDING COMPANY

Amendment made: No. 16, in page 9, line 19, after '7(1)', insert 'and (4)'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Clause 14

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SS. 5 TO 13.

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 11, line 10, after 'are', insert 'beneficially'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Schedule 4

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTING SS. 5 TO 13

Amendment made:No. 18, in page 41, leave out lines 31 to 35 and insert—
'(2) Section 92(9)(b) of the Finance Act 1972 (restriction on surrender of surplus advance corporation tax) and section 28(2) of the Finance Act 1973 (restriction of group relief) shall not apply to the Holding Company as the parent company of Associated British Ports.
(3) Payments by Associated British Ports under section 11(1) of this Act shall be treated as dividends for the purposes of the enactments relating to corporation tax.
(4) The vesting on the appointed day in the Holding Company of powers in relation to Associated British Ports shall not be regarded as constituting a change in the ownership of Associated British Ports for the purposes of section 483 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (restriction on carry forward of loss relief) or section 101 of the Finance Act 1972 (restriction on carry forward of relief for advance corporation tax).'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Clause 15

DISSOLUTION OF NATIONAL PORTS COUNCIL

Mr. Prescott: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 25, leave out 'determine' and insert

'alter in accordance with the provisions of this section.'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 20, in page 11, line 30, leave out from 'person' to 'and' in line 31 and insert 'shall be altered accordingly'.
No. 21, in page 11, line 37, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) The Order made by the Secretary of State under subsection 1 of this section shall require the National Ports Council to maintain such facilities as are required to provide him with an independent assessment of the financial, organisational and manpower problems facing the British Port' s Industry.'

Mr. Prescott: We have in these amendments the essential principle of difference between the Government and the Opposition about a centralised authority. The clear intention of the Bill itself is to abolish the National Ports Council, a central authority that was recommended by the Rochdale inquiry into the docks industry in 1962–64, and a central agency that was implemented by a previous Conservative Administration.
Our view—it is as well to make it clear, as it is relevant to the arguments that we are putting forward for a National Ports Council to be retained in some form—is that we have always believed that there should be a National Ports Authority—that is, a central agency with teeth and power to be able to implement the functions and roles that we would give to it and, indeed, as was envisaged in the Rochdale inquiry when it recommended a centralised authority.
We were defeated in Committee on that amendment. Whilst it was at the early stages of the guillotine procedure, I think that we did at least take sufficient time to indicate why, in those circumstances, we felt that a national ports authority was an essential part of the ports industry. Not only was it relevant to the period of the 1960s and, indeed, the 1970s; it is becoming increasingly evident that it is absolutely relevant to the 1980s, and possibly beyond that.
It is not necessary for me to put forward arguments about the National Ports Authority. It is simply for us to address ourselves to the amendments that are before the House this evening, the purpose of which is to retain in some form the National Ports Council. The clause to which we address our amendments deals with the apparent requirement of the Government that on the appointed day the National Ports Council shall cease its functions.
The rest of the clauses in this part of the Bill require cooperation from the people involved in achieving the rundown and the abolition of the National Ports Council and the transfer of some of its functions statutorily to the Government themselves, or, indeed, the transfer of some of the other industrial activities that it has been involved in to a similar body, presumably to be set up by the ports industry itself and financed in a similar way to the National Ports Council, though no doubt it will be a cheaper body. Presumably the levies will be less. We shall wait to see whether that is the case.
8.15 pm
We have recognised that the Government's intention in the clause is to abolish the National Ports Council, but we suggest that by adopting the amendment it will be possible for the Minister, by means of a statutory instrument, instead of announcing the end of the National Ports Council to announce that some activities of the council shall cease and others shall continue.
Presumably one could do that. It is not a happy way of dealing with the matter, but this is the vehicle on which we have decided to hold our debate this evening. Perhaps one could say that the Minister, if he so wished, could keep the statutory functions that he has decided to retain for himself, namely, the appeals in regard to dues and ships' charges—another subject that we shall be discussing on a later amendment—harbour reorganisation schemes, and, indeed, even the investment decisions that will have to be submitted to the Minister to deal with these matters.
The requirement for the investment of £3 million is interesting. I think that the Minister has ignored the National Ports Council recommendation to him that the limit that he should impose for the review of such investments should be £2 million. It is interesting that he has chosen to make it £3 million, because out of the 13 or 14 investment projects last year only four came to more than £3 million. Clearly this is one way of reducing the work load that he intends to impose on his civil servants.
Unfortunately—this is one of our arguments for a separate body to make a judgment about these matters—while attempting to lighten the load he is missing some very important investment projects that will determine the flow of traffic and trade in our ports, with consequential effects on a ports industry that, on balance, is only 35 per cent. used. We have a capacity for about 1,000 million tonnes and only 350 million tonnes are going through, with a direction in trade one way or another, either through specialisation in containerisation or, indeed, through the preference of some owners together deciding to use one port, with consequential effects upon others, which means that that investment decision determines not only the trade flows but, inevitably, the possible economic problems that the ports of Liverpool, London, Bristol and elsewhere will be faced with. We do not think that that is a particularly wise move, but we understand why the Minister wants to limit the amount of resources that he has to make the assessment.
What we are doing is reducing that amount of assessment. It is a matter of judgment whether it is better done by the National Ports Council or the Civil Service. I am bound to say, from my reckoning, that the National Ports Council, whose judgments I have not always agreed with, is better placed to provide a continuity of assessment in situations of that kind.
Our amendments are therefore designed to retain the National Ports Council in some limited roles. If the amendments are accepted the Minister will have a chance to reconsider the role of the council and perhaps a more limited function for its activities. Clearly, one of the most important ones could well be the maintaining of an advisory role to the Minister himself. Indeed, I think that he is nodding to my assessment that the limited resources that he has available to him in the ports directorate—if that is what it is called—of his Department are a factor in determining what scale of investment should be considered.
If that is so, I think that in those limited circumstances the National Ports Council, if maintained in an advisory role, would be of very great assistance to the Minister in assessing the future ports problems in terms of finance, organisation and manpower, which clearly the ports are presently plagued with, and have been for the last decade or so.
We recognise that the Minister would not wish to maintain the present powers of the National Ports Council—the limited statutory powers that it has had—such as the right to be consulted before going to the Minister. If he wishes to reduce them, so be it. It is not a choice that we would make, but our amendments would allow him to decide whether the council, in some form or other, should be retained, and certainly, perhaps, be able to do some of the things that it does at present.
In the circumstances I suggest that the council has an important rôle, because we foresee a crisis situation developing in our ports industry. In Committee and on Second Reading there was clear evidence of a realisation by the Secretary of State that all is not well in the ports industry. The right hon. Gentleman finds that he must make a reassessment of the policy objectives that he stated when he first took up the office of Secretary of State.
I do not intend to reiterate the "brave new world" statements made by the right hon. Gentleman at that time, but by his firm pronouncements that he believed the less intervention the better, as he processes the various pieces of legislation he will probably feel that that is the best advice. The reality, however, is that he cannot stay out of these matters. The problems of the ports of London, Liverpool and Bristol are of such a nature that he is bound increasingly to intervene. While he may have said that he had no intention of intervening in these matters, he is being increasingly dragged into them.
If that is the case—and legislation before the House shows clear evidence of such intervention—he will have to make judgments. In those judgments he will be assisted by the Civil Service. No doubt the Civil Service gave him advice in respect of his first piece of legislation. He may not have taken the advice of his civil servants. He clearly did not take the advice of the National Ports Council, hence the mess that he is getting himself into now.
I do not know what the right hon. Member's civil servants' advice was, but presumably he acted on it when we had the London Bill. The Opposition told him then that within a short time he would be bringing in a Bill for the port of Liverpool. Right on cue, just before Christmas, there was money to extend the loans to that port and to extend its operations. Now we have a Bill involving hundreds of millions of pounds to deal directly with the problems of Liverpool and London. No doubt when we discuss that Bill there will be other ports which, we may equally predict, will have similar problems, to which the Secretary of State will have to address himself.
We now live in a more realistic climate, and the Minister recognises that. The former ports policy was subjected to a crisis in the 1970s, when the former hon. Member for Yeovil, Mr. Peyton, did exactly the same thing, and rapidly made a U-turn. We have witnessed the same here.
The Minister now has constantly to refer to various types of management consultant bodies, or accountants. In the case of London, the Labour Government did the same. They went to accountants—Peat Marwick Mitchell and Co., and Price Waterhouse and Co. The Minister therefore has to go to accountants who do not carry out a six-months' survey. In the case of London, the firm is still surveying the matter, and in Liverpool the firm will continue. The reason is that the financial disciplines that each Secretary of State hopes to impose on port authorities require regular checking. Unless the Minister is prepared to use his civil servants to that end he has to rely on a highly specialised


group of people. No doubt they have specialised skills in respect of the port industry to meet the charge that they have taken on. In those circumstances the Minister is actually going to the private sector's National Ports Council, or to accountants, to give him advice.
When the Minister considers the matter, and particularly when he brings forward his statutory instruments, we hope that within 12 months he will find it wise to keep on some of the people in the National Ports Council, who presumably may find jobs with the accountants whom the Minister will have to employ to assist him with the problems of various ports. Clearly he will need advice, not only on investment decisions but in respect of the entire issue of dock redevelopment schemes to be embarked upon by the Department of the Environment. Manpower problems, too, will be considerable.
I submit that it is worth putting on record the fact that when we see the decline in manpower in this industry, from 130,000 in 1966 down to 76,000 in 1976—which is a 45 per cent. decline—and with a further decline of 30 per cent. envisaged by 1985, the Government will certainly need advice on the problems. I hope that the Government will act on advice, because in the measures which they proposed for intervening on the labour scheme, which everyone thought was sacrosanct and would not be interfered with, the Government' actions interfered to such an extent that when I visited Aberdeen last week I found the dockers on strike. We warned the Minister that that would happen if he sought to have first-class and second-class dockers in respect of redundancy schemes.
The Minister went ahead, and he did it without taking advice. He did not talk to the port employers. They had the shotgun marriage that we had. We were delighted to have five minutes in the Secretary of State's room. He must have been dashing around all afternoon from what I saw of the various parties talking to him in the hour or two that he had. He was a very busy man. I am surprised that he found five or 10 minutes for us. That is not consultation. The industry's protests must be as evident to the Minister as they are to us. If that is the type of consultation that the industry may expect from the Secretary of State in respect of these explosive political and economic problems—which will put considerable burdens upon it—the industry's view is that it will be left with a higher level of redundancy payments. Many who have withdrawn their redundancy payments will not accept them as the minimum.
In that area alone, advice is much needed. The Minister cannot seek consolation from the fact that the industry itself will give that type of advice to him. He needs independent advice which does not conflict with the interests of individual ports. If he asks the ports to achieve a greater level of efficiency and productivity, he will be asking the port industry to be critical of some of the ports in its own trade association, identifying those that are more efficient than others. Frankly, it will not happen, because trade associations do not work like that. The National Ports Council did so. It gave a proper assessment of these problems. Efficiency and productivity problems are relevant matters for all of us to consider. In the matter of advice, it is important that they should be considered. When we know the low price paid for the National Ports Council we see that this is a bit of ideological business, motivated by Mr. Polanski, who wants to make his contribution from the Department of Transport to the

ending of quangos. But he is making us less well off, because the advice will not be as independent, objective or full as I believe the Secretary of State needs in the troublesome waters that he will face in the future concerning the problems in the port industry.
The future problems are well spelt out in the National Ports Council's annual report, which was given to the Minister. This report was prepared in 1978 for the former Labour Secretary of State. There are great warning signs to the coming problems.
For the Minister today to divest himself of qualified advice, on which he can rely and from which he can make a judgment and which has been proved by time, is to make himself weaker and less able to deal with the problems. If the Minister accepts the amendment he will have time to rethink the situation and possibly come back to the idea of retaining the National Ports Council in an advisory rôle, as he does with the accountants and management consultants. He is asking them the same questions as he should ask the National Ports Council.

Mr. Fowler: Some of the comments legitimately made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in introducing the amendments were raised on Second Reading of the Ports Bill. Doubtless they will be raised again in the Committee proceedings on that Bill.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the abolition of the National Ports Council is an important issue. The three amendments reflect the divergence of view between the Government and the Opposition concerning ports policy. That is also a point that the hon. Gentleman made. The Government are firmly of the view that the time is now right for a transfer of responsibility for the future of the ports industry to the industry itself. The ports should have as much freedom as possible to determine their own future, and managements must have full responsibility for their own actions. The ports, in particular those around the country, have for a long time been urging me to relieve them of unnecessary controls. It is probably a unanimous voice coming from the ports industry. They have urged me that the time has come to abolish the National Ports Council, and that, of course, is what we are doing in the Bill.
In contrast to that, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, who has great knowledge of the ports industry, offers a number of other proposals. In Committee he offered the idea of a centralised national ports authority, but he has not developed that this evening. The objective of the amendments, which appears to be much more limited, is to provide the Secretary of State for Transport with independent assessments of the problems of the industry. However, I do not believe that those even more limited powers and the even more limited role for the National Ports Council are necessary.
I should like to explain why we believe that the time has now come to abolish the National Ports Council. When the council was set up in 1964 it had a number of major tasks to perform. It followed, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Rochdale Committee of 1962, and the council has successfully implemented and further developed many of the recommendations of that committee. At least some of the credit for the fact that the ports industry is in a much fitter state than it was in 1964 must go to the council. In particular, it has formulated and, in conjunction with the industry, implemented an


important programme of port amalgamations and a programme of reconstitution of harbour boards. It has played a major part in the introduction of a commercial approach to ports charging and it has assisted the industry by providing statistics and forecasts and by carrying out and promoting research.
However, it does not necessarily follow that the continued existence of the council represents the best means of securing the further improvements which are still necessary in the ports industry. There is no dispute between the hon. Gentleman and myself that further improvements in the industry are needed. The problems facing the ports are particularly concerned with the adaptation to technological change and are, of course, made considerably worse by the recession. Some ports, notably London and Mersey, have surplus manpower, and all of them need to strive continually to increase efficiency and productivity.
The Government's view is that the problems are clear enough to the ports authorities. There is no need to have a definition of that. But it is only port managements which can take action to put those problems right. It is not a matter of advice to the Secretary of State. Still less, if I may say so, is it a matter of a national ports plan based on the unproven assumption that someone else knows better than the ports industry what is good for it. It is really now a matter of the ports facing up to their problems in the knowledge that the responsibility lies with them.
Of course, we all want a range of ports around the country which are capable of handling the nation's trade. We all believe that they should be efficiently organised and managed, that they should make the best possible use of economic resources and that they should impose the smallest practicable charge on their customers. But the Government, in seeking to put those objectives into effect, would set three conditions for achieving them. The first is that the customer should basically choose which port he wants to use. It is the decision of the customer which should determine how much trade each port gets and, ultimately, which of the ports should prosper and which should not. Secondly, there should be the maximum practicable competition between the ports, because this best serves the interests of port users and of the country as a whole. I simply do not believe that the alternative of greater control is likely to lead to more efficient, more responsive or cheaper services for the customer. Thirdly, the ports must have freedom to settle their own future. Therefore, the Government are seeking to withdraw as much as possible from detailed interference in the industry, and in future they will concentrate on longer-term and major structural issues.
The Bill does not remove from me my responsibility for ports policy. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East pointed out, I shall retain the powers which I need to carry out major functions, one of these being the requirement under the 1964 Harbours Act for approval to major port investment. Again, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I recently increased from £1 million to £3 million the level below which schemes do not need approval. The exact figure is a matter of balance and judgment, but I judge that that is about the right figure.
I have retained control over investment to ensure that development takes place only where there is a demonstrable need for it, where a customer is ready to use

it and where the investment shows a satisfactory rate of return. But, of course, I do not use this power to direct investment to specific ports or to stifle the proper competition between them.
I shall also be taking over a limited number of the council's functions—it is important that this should be understood—which I consider are necessary to the Government's changed role. The main ones are the statutory duty to decide objections by port users to ship, passenger and goods dues levied by port authorities and the collection of a streamlined range of statistics to support the statutory responsibilities. At the same time, the industry itself, acting in particular through the British Ports Association, is taking over some of the council's work. As from 1 April, the British Ports Association became responsible for research and training, and it is currently considering exactly what its role should be in collecting and publishing statistics on behalf of the industry. I am pleased that the BPA is actively engaged in strengthening and enlarging its organisation to perform this new role. The Government look to the association to disseminate advice and good industrial and commercial practices throughout the industry generally.
The council has pointed out, and the Government recognise, that there are still areas of the industry where improvements are required, notably in reducing surplus manpower, in developing facilities to take advantage of technological developments, especially in cargo handling, and in improving the overall efficiency and productivity of the ports. Some of these matters will need concerted action by the association, often in co-operation with port users.
I should like to mention two examples, which are important. First, there have been discussions about taking forward work which has begun on measuring and comparing the way cargo is handled in the ports. Proposals for developing this work were agreed last year between the BPA and the port users' representatives, and it is in the national interest that this work is put in hand. Secondly, proposals were agreed last year for consultative machinery through which the BPA, the General Council of British Shipping, the CBI and the Freight Transport Association should collaborate. Again, I regard those as constructive steps, and I look forward to the machinery being established. These are examples of ways in which the industry is finding practical solutions more effectively than would be possible if it felt that it was being dictated to by another central body.
We should not deceive ourselves by talk of independent assessment, which underlies the amendment. In my view, the problems of the industry are clear enough, and certainly I do not believe that they need research. What is needed basically is determination on the part of those responsible for the ports to deal with the problems. The Government will certainly continue to play their part, where necessary, but we are looking to the industry above all to shoulder a greater responsibility than it has hitherto been able to do, especially on financial and organisational matters. I do not deny that there is a challenge facing the ports, and a challenge, let me stress, facing the British Ports Association.
The Government have responded to the request of the ports and the association to give them the authority to deal with the industry's future and its needs in its own way. But there is, I believe, no room for a National Ports Council sitting on the sidelines charged simply with providing a


settlement. Manpower issues at national level are in any case mainly the responsibility of the National Dock Labour Board, and the amendment could create an element of dual responsibility. Finance, organisation and manpower go to the heart of running the ports. I believe that these are matters for which the ports themselves must be responsible. It is their industry, and it is for them to determine their future. We remain convinced that the policies of the Opposition would simply reduce the service to port users and reduce competition between ports, and I believe that they would frustrate sound port investment.
I have tried to set out to the House the background to the abolition of the National Ports Council. It was set up in 1964. It has done some good work over the years but basically we do not believe that it is required in the years ahead. What we also recognise, however, is the increasing responsibility and challenge which we have now given to the ports industry and to the British Ports Association. Therefore, I certainly stand by the policy in the Bill. On these grounds, I advise the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Prescott: The Minister has spelt out how he feels that the ports industry will not progress. As he said, we are in disagreement on the fundamental approach to these matters. We have heard some very kind words. It seems that fine words rather than good judgment still prevail with the Secretary of State. His fine words are that the customer should be right and should choose where he goes and that the ports industry knows what is in its best interests.
I suggest that the Minister should read what the various reports have said about the industry. From well before Rochdale, going back to well before the war, they have unfortunately always condemned the judgment of the industry in looking after its interests, and Governments have had constantly to intervene. It was a Conservative Government who brought in the National Ports Council in the early 1960s. It was a Conservative Government in the early 1970s who strengthened the council. It is the present Conservative Government who are deciding to abolish it in the teeth of the increasing problems facing the industry.
It may sound fine to say that the customer should choose where he goes, but in reality what is the Minister saying in that judgment? We have a ports industry in which only one-third of its capacity is used. Even with the greatest leaps and bounds in world trade, we cannot envisage its capacity being increased to anything more than 50 per cent. It would be optimistic to hope to achieve that. That means that companies will play off against each other ports which are desperate for any business that they can get. The reality is that the price will fall rapidly in all those ports, and everybody will be fighting to get whatever marginal traffic he can.
8.45 pm
The logic of the Minister's argument was that the customer should pay and the Government should determine what ports should survive, because in their competitive philosophy the ports would have to be efficient. The successful ones will survive and the unfortunate ones will decline. That is a simple enough analysis, because it is affected by all sorts of trade, from East to West, as we said in Committee, and from West to East.
Even if what the Government say is true, why is the Minister bringing Bills before the House for hundreds of millions of pounds to rescue some of the country's big

ports? It is because the Secretary of State cannot face the reality, as the previous Minister could not face the reality, of letting these ports collapse. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State went much further and was prepared to bankrupt the company. At the end of the day, however, he had to rush in with bits of legislation to correct the situation, and one of those changes was the strengthening of the National Ports Council to prevent those problems happening again.
The history is very well written about management's ability to make proper decisions. I hope that the ability of management has improved, but I noted that one of the latest reports of the National Ports Council pointed out that the ports industry had fewer levels of specialised management in its management structure than any other industry of which it was aware. That remark related to today, not to 10 or 20 years ago. That is the judgment of the National Ports Council. If that is the case and if one is relying on the decisions of the management in such circumstances, it looks as though the public assets involved in this situation are likely to move further and further into problems.
There are many other points that I could make in view of the statement by the Minister about his future ports policy. However, in thinking about our debate in the next Committee it is useful for the Minister to have spelt out his views at this stage of the game, and I appreciate his having done so. I think that he is very wrong and that we shall pay the price for it in our ports development
Perhaps my final observation should be that the day when we finished in Committee was the day when the Dutch announced the setting up of a national ports council. We often look to Europe for advice, but in this case we were well ahead of them. Just as we were getting rid of these things, the Continentals were saying "The British are on to a good thing there. They have admitted that the National Ports Council has done a hell of a good job." Now, we are saying that we will abolish it while our Continental friends are adopting the very central agency that they thought had been most useful in bringing about the considerable changes that have taken place in the industry.
In the course of our debates, as has been pointed out to me by the National Ports Council, there was discussion of the National Ports Council's role in regard to supporting the Bristol port authority investment. We thought that the council did not support it to begin with but did so eventually. I am told that it supported it completely throughout the stages. I am bound to say that I think that the judgment was wrong, whether the council supported it before or afterwards.
I have said on earlier occasions that I have not always agreed with all the judgments of the National Ports Council, as, indeed, the Minister himself has said. It is not necessary for us to accept its judgment, but it is necessary for us to accept and to understand the advice that is given to us and make our own judgment, whether we consider that the advice is right or wrong.
In view of the guillotine situation, we do not intend to press the amendment but wall move on to the next stage of the amendments.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the hon. Member asking to withdraw the amendment?

Mr. Prescott: Yes. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6

AMENDMENTS OF THE HARBOURS ACT 1964

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 22, in page 58, line 25, at end insert—

'Ship, passenger and goods dues and other charges

8.—(1) After section 27 there is inserted—
"Combined charges

27A.—(1) Where a harbour authority have power, whether by virtue of section 26 of this Act or any other statutory provision—
(a) to levy ship, passenger and goods dues or equivalent dues; and
(b) to make other charges,
the authority may, subject to the next following subsection, make a combined charge, that is to say, a single charge referable in part to matters for which ship, passenger and goods dues or equivalent dues may be levied and in part to matters for which other charges may be made.

(2) A harbour authority may not make a combined charge in any case where—
(a) the person who would be liable to pay the charge objects to paying a combined charge; or
(b) a number of persons would be jointly and severally liable to pay the charge and any of them objects to paying a combined charge; 
but without prejudice to the power of the authority to make separate charges in such a case.

(3) A person may not object under subsection (2) above to the payment of a combined charge in pursuance of a prior agreement between that person and the harbour authority.

(4) In this section—
 'equivalent dues' means dues exigible in respect of things other than ships for entering, using or leaving a harbour, including charges for marking or lighting the harbour; and
 'harbour authority' has the same meaning as in section 26 of this Act.".

(2) In section 30 (duties with respect to keeping of lists of charges, etc.) after subsection (4) there is inserted—

"(5) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to combined charges within the meaning of section 27A of this Act.

(6) References in this section to the dues of charges exigible by an authority or Board are references to the amount exigible where no composition agreement applies and no specially agreed rebate is allowed.

(3) In section 31 (right of objection to ship, passenger and goods dues), at the end of subsection (1) (charges to which the section applies) there is inserted "other than combined charges within the meaning of section 27A of this Act; and references in this section to the rate at which any such charge is imposed are to the amount where no composition agreement applies and no specially agreed rebate is allowed".'.

This amendment was foreshadowed in our Committee debates. It has been brought forward by the Government to clarify the position when port users wish to appeal against their ship, passenger and goods dues in ports. It arises as a result of representations which have been made to the Government and which were made to all members of the Committee on behalf of waterways users and others who are very concerned about the appeal rights that exist in the case of ship, passenger and goods dues. Some of them wish to see appeal rights extended to cover cargo handling charges also. They were able to impress us to the extent that we accepted that there was confusion and doubt in present practice. This is a useful occasion on which to clarify matters.

A list of ship, passenger and goods dues has to be drawn up and under section 30 of the Harbours Act 1964 the harbour authority has to make those dues available for inspection. Section 31 of the 1964 Act also gives a right of appeal against those dues to the National Ports Council. That right of appeal has been retained, but under the terms of the Bill the appeal is transferred to the Secretary of State.

I listened to the case put forward for extending the appeal rights to cargo handling charges generally. It certainly is the case that the practice has changed since 1964. Since that time the port authorities have themselves become major employers of stevedores. They have acquired quite a lot of warehousing facilities also, and with the growth of containerisation and with technical change in the industry the practice has arisen of port users having to look to the port owner for cargo handling charges as well as the traditional dues. The practice has also arisen of ports making combined charges to their users, which comprise not only the goods, passenger and ship dues on the one hand but cargo handling on the other.

We resisted the idea of extending the powers of appeal to cover cargo handling, largely because it would be inconsistent with the policy of the Bill. The policy of the Bill, as has been underlined on another feature by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is that the Government believe that there is a limit to the extent of useful Government involvement in the day-to-day affairs of the ports. Certainly, we do not wish to see the Government involved in the commercial side of the ports business and in any way fixing cargo handling charges or anything of that kind.

We also feel that if a right of appeal were granted to users against the cargo handling charges imposed by port authorities, it would give rise to an anomaly, because no right of appeal is contemplated concerning the cargo handling charges made by private stevedoring companies. Therefore, we were not very happy about a situation in which we would be giving a right of appeal against the cargo handling charges by the statutory bodies but no similar right of appeal against the private bodies.

We were also concerned that if we gave a general right of appeal it would be possible for major users of ports, in theory at least, to enter into commercial agreements for the charges that they were paying and then to seek to reopen them afterwards by exercising a statutory right of appeal and trying to get the bargain adjusted in their favour by going to the Secretary of State.

I am trying to condense an argument which we had in Committee. We went over it, and I hope we satisfied the Committee that the Government did not feel it right to extend the existing appeal provisions. On the other hand, we are quite content to leave such appeal provisions as there are extant and to transfer from the National Ports Council to the Secretary of State the duties of hearing the appeals.

The question then arose of the combined charges and the way in which some people felt that the rights of appeal against the dues were being frustrated when combined charges were levied, because it was impossible to disentangle the dues in respect of which there could be a right of appeal from the cargo handling charges in respect of which there was not a right of appeal. That seems to us to be a problem, because there has been an increasing


practice of imposing such combined charges when a ship enters a port and wishes to have its cargo handling done by the port authority as well.

I make it clear that we do not disapprove of the combined charges practice. In many cases it is perfectly satisfactory to the port user and to the port authority and it may be a perfectly sensible way of charging. There can, however, be occasions when it is impossible for the user to disentangle the dues against which he might wish to exercise his rights of appeal.

Therefore, the amendment makes it clear that harbour authorities indeed have the power to make a combined charge, combining the dues and the cargo handling and any other charges. On the other hand, they do not have the right to make a combined charge where the port user objects to the combined charge, which means, in effect, where the port user asks for a separate identification of the dues element. We are therefore providing that the port user will be able to require that the dues element is identified separately. That will make sure, therefore, that the rights of appeal can be exercised and will not be frustrated by modern charging practice.

That, of course, does not go the whole way. I am sure that it does not entirely satisfy hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, and it will not satisfy some of the waterways interests either. For our part, however, we are content that it would not be right for the Government to go beyond that. There is a distinction between the dues charged for conservancy and maintenance functions, almost by way of a tax, imposed on each owner whose vessels enter a port, and the cargo handling charges, which are a matter really for commercial arrangement, bargaining and negotiation. We are therefore content for the appeals machinery to be confined to the dues. We hope that the amendments will clarify the dues charging arrangements, enabling them to be identified separately and, thereby, making sure that the appeal provisions can be used in practice by users.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) pressed me on this, as did the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). I hope that they accept that we have responded in part to their request and that what we are proposing is certainly an improvement to the Bill as it originally stood.

Mr. Prescott: We would be churlish not to welcome what the Minister has presented for us this evening in regard to complaints about the appeals concerning dues and charges on ships. We put forward an amendment, and I think that it was supported to a certain extent by the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), bobbing in and out of the Committee, though we do not have even that advantage this evening.
I think that the proposal that is being put forward by the Government goes at least some way to assist people who have serious argument about the charges that are imposed by a port authority. We must recognise that what we are doing in the Bill is strengthening existing port authorities in regard to the extra functions which they may have in being able to have road haulage and agency firms and such matters which heighten the fears concerning, I would not say a monopoly situation but perhaps an oligopolistic kind of situation, as The Economist seeks to call it. Nevertheless, it is a matter of some concern, and I think that when an aggrieved person whose business may depend

upon entry through a port may be charged something against which he has no appeal, injustice is likely to be perpetrated.
Living in the areas of the British Transport Docks Board and the port of Hull., I well know the feeling and the possibilities of getting people like Sir Humphrey Browne to recognise any kind of rational argument in these areas. Indeed, I cannot believe that the Secretary of State has achieved this without some considerable argument behind the scenes with the personalities involved in the British Transport Docks Board, because presumably, as a large authority that is involved in this situation, it has been faced constantly with the combined charge situation being the normal development in the docks industry—that is, where people might rent a pier or take the whole situation of an operation of one part of a port. I can think of many examples in my own port area where it is a contracted price and no difference is made between the various dues that will apply. It is one charge
The most common example used by people in these cases is that of the container box, which is a good example. The charge is on the box, but inevitably the charge includes an element relating to dues and goods. They pay a proportion of that. I shall address my remarks simply to the dues argument. We pressed in Committee for charges to be included. I think that in regard to the dues it is a welcome move.
There will be a requirement now on a port authority to identify the differences in the charges, and they can be quite considerable. It is no coincidence that I and a number of North Humberside MPs, of both parties, have had to meet various employers in our cities who were very concerned about the dues. It was nothing to do with labour charges; it was simply the dues themselves. They gave us a table for the unloading of the same ship at different ports.
The differences are quite considerable. For example, for the same ship of a registered tonnage of 2,000 tons discharging chemicals, in Hull the figure was £6,220, in Immingham it was £5,420, in Middlesbrough it dropped to £1,736, in Ipswich it was £1,736, in Sheerness £7,800, in Liverpool £4,160, in Glasgow £3,480 and in London nearly £5,000. That is simply on dues. Those are the charges that the port authority itself assesses as a charge to be imposed for the services that it provides. As the Secretary of State said, that can make a customer decide to go where it is cheapest.
These port dues tend to reflect the amount of investment and the interest rates, and the time of that investment will be reflected in the dues. A port of some considerable investment in the last few years will be carrying a quite considerable levy. Therefore, good investment does not necessarily mean that one will reap the benefit of it if the total charge to bring the system through one's port is excessive, which is the matter of concern. I think the House will agree that those differences are quite considerable. Also, the two British transport docks boards on the Humber itself have considerable differences, quite apart from those of other port authorities in other regions of the country.
That is one example where, clearly, there can be a grievance about such charges. I think that at least the Minister tonight has made it a little easier to identify the problem and then to be able to seek the possibility of getting an appeal to the Secretary of State now that he has taken on that function from the National Ports Council once the Bill has been passed.
9 pm
I presume—perhaps I was not listening carefully enough to the Minister—that in the contractual arrangements discounted rates will apply. Will the ports be expected to show the various discounted rates even in contract agreements? I do not see the necessity for it, because that, I assume, is two people in contract negotiating a contract with the port authority, and I presume that they are equal partners to the contract, and in the main I presume that the authority will not be unnecessarily expected to spell out what the port due is and what the other charges are.
This was an argument that the Minister put later in relation to charges. He felt that if people were in that situation who had already had a contract agreement and charges were disputed through this appeal system and a judgment was made, the whole business of the contractual arrangement would be challenged, because it would be felt that the charges imposed were found to be unfair by the Secretary of State.
In that case a contractual relationship between the two would—he was implying—be affected by what agreement was arrived at out of the decision reached by the Secretary of State on an appeal to him that these charges were unfair, because presumably that is the basic complaint that people would be making to him about that matter. Therefore, I wondered what the position was in regard to those contract situations.
There is one other point that the Minister did not mention, and I do not know whether it applies in this case. The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe followed on some of the points that I have made about this, where the port authority is also the conservancy authority. In those circumstances charges are imposed upon ships that may not come into the expected port but go on to another area. In those cases, will those conservancy charges be for appeal? Presumably such charges will be imposed.
I did not find a great deal of complaint about the right of an authority to impose charges on small boats going down the rivers. I said in Committee that I thought that to be a legitimate charge, but I wonder about that now, particularly as the National Waterways Transport Association had made it clear to us in letters received in Committee that it felt that since this was now going to be a private body it did not feel that a private body should be in competition with it, in that sense, directly to control the conservation charges to it and therefore affect its transport.
That would be the complaint of those who have wharves down the Trent. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the conservancy charges would allow a possibility of appeal.
Finally, the main issue about appeals is the one that the Secretary of State and the Minister have heard from us in regard to Hull. We shall now have the right to appeal against charges that may be imposed by the dock authority for dues. That is clear. The Minister has now made it clear that that is so and that they must provide the differences so that people can make a judgement.
Unfortunately, the charges are equally important. I point to the charges imposed on the Hull fish dock. The Minister will know that all the Members of Parliament for North Humberside, of both parties, came pressing on him the judgment that had been arrived at by the British Transport Docks Board to impose a charge level eight or

nine times the level in Grimsby. There was a considerable difference for the same ship unloading the same cargo. The judgment by the board was
Because you have not got as much fish now, you have been kicked out of Iceland, and you have got nothing off the Community, we are now saying that we must get everything out of the two ships that come into the harbour instead of the 100 ships that used to come.
Clearly, no fish authority and no industry could possibly survive with such penal charges. It is when a port authority decides to take that action that we really are in difficulties. In this case, if there are charges other than the dues that are coming into the wharf, there will be no appeal against the port authority closing down this port.
By "closing down" I do not mean closing it, emptying it of water and filling it in; that requires statutory permission. I mean that labour is not provided to open the gates and that vessels that come in are no longer serviced.
I am bound to tell the Minister that despite the brave attempts made by all involved—labour and management—to secure a fish landing facility in Hull, we now face considerabe dangers, with the delay in the agreement yet again, of the BTDB moving in and seeking to achieve the policy that it sought to achieve some while ago, which will now be made much easier if it is a private organisation—a point that will not be lost on Sir Humphrey Browne; not that he took much notice of directions from the Secretary of State, as I understand it, which meant that the only influence that one had was to try to build up some kind of public pressure. One hopes that that will continue to be so.
If the Minister had accepted our amendment to include charges it would have been easier for a community to argue the case that it was necessary for that community to maintain a fish landing facility, because Hull without a fish landing facility is not a fishing port. That is the reality, and if that decision is not profitable to the British Transport Docks Board it cuts off all the other industries that depend on access to that port, and a fishing facility. We look with considerable apprehension at what will happen if Sir Humphrey Browne is able to levy charges higher than those realised in other fishing harbours and is able to secure the end of a fish landing facility in Hull.
We give Sir Humphrey fair warning. We will not accept it. We will do everything that we can to stop it. I am sorry that the Minister did not accept our arguments to include charges, because then we would have appealed to an independent board to make a judgment whether the decision was right and proper in regard to the charges that have been imposed and that have brought about the present situation.
In the final analysis, as the inquiry on the appeal on charges in Grimsby showed some years ago, the controversial inflationary accounting adopted by the British Transport Docks Board was a policy not pursued by any other companies; it was a policy that discriminated against BTDB ports and affected the fishing industry particularly. In that case the National Ports Council upheld the appeal of the industry, but the Minister, while now making it clearer, has not made it easier.
If the Minister had accepted our amendment about charges we would have been in a better position to fight to retain Hull's fish landing facilities, which we intend to do. We will not accept any dictat that Hull's fish landing facilities will close, but we have been denied the possibility of an independent body to check the operator


making a decision that is commercially advantageous to him but that sounds the death knell to a fishing port like Hull.
We welcome the amendments that the Minister has put before us tonight, but we are sorry that he has not gone so far as to include the charges.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman asks about the extent of the dues in respect of which the harbour authority will be under a duty to publish lists and in respect of which a right of appeal will exist. We are not altering sections 30 and 31 of the Harbours Act 1964 in that respect, so the ship, passenger and goods dues will remain the only charges subject to appeal. I believe that does not extend to the conservancy charges imposed by a harbour authority, which also has a conservancy duty in respect ships that pass through on their way to another port. If I am correct in that, and such dues are at the moment not appealable under section 31 of the 1964 Act, nothing in the Bill will make them appealable.
We are preserving the previous rights of appeal but we are not extending them in any way. We are also making it clear that the duty to list charges and the rights of appeal against them do not extend to combined charges. On the other hand, where dues are charged that are subject to a composition agreement or a specially agreed rebate, which was another question asked by the hon. Gentleman, such dues will not be liable to the Harbours Act 1964 and the appeal procedure as revised here.
If one looks at the amendment one sees that it states, in subsection (6):
References in this section to the dues of charges
actually provides that where a rebate is contained it is not liable to the listing duties and the appeal charges. We are talking about straightforward dues; we are talking about the case of a port user who objects to having a combined charge, when the dues are identified and can be appealed against to the Secretary of State.
Those dues that can be appealed against vary widely from port to port, as the hon. Gentleman said, but that reflects the differing costs that have been incurred for the maintenance of channels, quays, lights, and so on, for which these dues are properly charged, and in exercising his appeal function the Secretary of State will continue to act in the same way as the NPC has, and will seek to make sure that they bear a reasonable relationship to the costs imposed on the port authority for maintaining the various sorts of necessary hardware of the port.
The hon. Gentleman expressed regret that we had not extended the provision to cover charges generally, and he cited the problems that the fishermen of Hull have been having with BTDB as an example showing that an appeal procedure might have helped. As I told him about 12 months ago, when we discussed on the telephone the charges for a particular fishing boat, the BTDB was already being allowed by the Government to exercise its own commercial judgment and its own commercial freedom; there was no ministerial direction on Sir Humphrey Browne and the board then. They were to charge a set rate for an Icelandic vessel trying to put into Hull. It was, in fact, in response to public pressure and at the request of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that an agreement was satisfactorily achieved. Given the future of the docks business and the highly competitive and commercial nature of the industry, that seems to us the most satisfactory way of resolving these problems.
The charges for cargo handling, goods storage, and so on, are part of a highly competitive business. Each of the British ports is in close competition—sometimes fierce competition—with the other British ports. Even in the Humber, where the BTDB are the owners of the four major ports, there is still to some extent competition between the different ports, although it is all within the same ownership, and it is not the case that the BTDB provides all the cargo handling labour in all those ports. My recollection, off the cuff, is that in Hull most of the stevedoring is now provided by the BTDB, but that is by no means the case on the south side of the Humber. There are still private providers of stevedoring and cargo handling facilities with whom the BTDB are in competition, and competition for those essentially commercial services has always been relied upon in the past. There is no existing appeals machinery, and it seems to us the best safeguard for port users in the future.
Having said that, we have not gone the whole way. We accept the need to clarify the appeal rights in respect of dues, and I am glad that the amendment is welcome to that extent, at least.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19

DISQUALIFICATION FOR REPEATED OFFENCES

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 38, at end insert
'(or, where a range of numbers is so shown, a number falling within the range)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45; amendment No. 23, in schedule 7, line 28, column 3, leave out '6' and insert
'not less than 2 and not more than 10 at the discretion of the court.'.
and Government amendments No. 46 and 47.

Mr. Clarke: We now go in for an abrupt change of subject. We are into the motoring law part of the Bill, dealing with the changes to the totting-up system that the Bill makes. There was a general welcome on Second Reading and throughout the Committee proceedings for the broad changes that we are making.
We are moving away from the present system where three endorsements for any traffic conviction within three years can give rise to a risk of disqualification to a system whereby endorsements will acquire a given number of points reflecting the seriousness of different traffic offences, and it is when the requisite number of points has been achieved that a motorist will face the risk of disqualification.
We believe that this is a more effective way of dealing with the persistent offender against traffic laws. At the same time, it is much fairer to the motorist, because he runs the risk of losing his licence only when he has persistently offended to the extent that he has run up a serious traffic record. A clear distinction is made between the motorist who may have three comparatively minor traffic infringements within the set period and the motorist who has three, or even just two, serious infringements within the same period.
The appropriate schedule sets out a range of suggested points penalties. It is part II of schedule 7, showing


offences varying from "reckless driving", which shows 10 points, to "failing to comply with conditions of licence" which acquires only two points. "Carrying passenger on motor cycle contrary to section 16" acquires only one point. It is when 12 points have been acquired within the period of three years that the risk of losing the licence occurs.
9.15 pm
In fixing the number of points for varying offences we used as guidelines the average level of fines imposed by magistrates' courts over recent years, because that gave us a ready way of judging the seriousness which those charged with hearing cases tended to attribute to different types of traffic offence. When we drafted the Bill we suggested fixed points penalties in each case, and did not leave ay discretion to magistrates in respect of the number of points to be imposed once an offence had been proved or admitted.
One reason for not including an element of discretion was that we thought that if discretion was left to magistrates' courts in each case the result would be an inevitable inconsistency between courts in different parts of the country. This could give rise to a feeling of unfairness among motorists. We felt, too, that if discretion was left to magistrates many motorists in routine cases in which they were happy to admit their guilt would feel the need to go to the magistrates' court to argue for the lowest number of points possible. They might also, if dissatisfied with the points imposed, go on appeal to a higher court to try to have the number revised. The resulting work load on the courts would be insupportable and would get in the way of the serious criminal and traffic business that magistrates' courts have to transact.
In Committee, however, we faced arguments from hon. Members on both sides about the complete lack of discretion proposed. Those arguments concentrated on two offences in particular, namely, "failing to stop after accident" and "failing to give particulars or report accident". Although, when we drafted the Bill we were minded—and I gave the reasons in Committee—to put forward fixed penalty points for those offences, having listened to the arguments and considered the matter further we accept that those offences include a wide range of situations. They range in seriousness from a minor bump in traffic, at one extreme, to a hit-and-run accident in which a victim is left dying or bleeding in a ditch at the other.
Therefore we felt that it would be right to give a band of points to magistrates' courts, leaving it to them to choose the appropriate points to be imposed, on endorsement, for either of those offences. These amendments, taken as a body, set out the Government's proposals. For "failure to stop after accident" we suggest a band of points from five to nine, and for "failure to give particulars or report accident" we suggest a band of points from four to nine.
I hope that the effect of these suggestions will enable magistrates' courts to reflect the seriousness of the offence in which someone has been left injured. As I said in Committee, we should expect, in the most serious cases in which someone has literally been left in a ditch by a hit-and-run driver, that if the driver is caught and prosecuted for, among other matters, failure to stop after an accident,

he is more likely to run the risk of immediate disqualification. It is open to the magistrates' courts to impose such a penalty rather than any range of points.
Up to nine points, the system will enable magistrates to endorse a licence and impose a serious points penalty in the worst cases of failing to stop, whereas they could come down to five points in a case of failure to report, or down to four points when the case was a more minor one.
Fears were expressed in Committee that there could be insignificant cases of accidents in which a serious penalty for failure to report or failure to stop was inappropriate. As I then pointed out, if someone has an accident and does not know that he has been in an accident, he cannot be guilty of either of these traffic offences. In every case that comes before the courts we are dealing with people who know perfectly well that they have had an accident and, despite that, have gone on either without stopping or possibly without reporting it.
In the absolutely trivial case the police have a discretion not to prosecute at all, but even the case that involves merely damage to a vehicle tends to be a serious anti-social act. To hit a parked car, for instance, and drive off without leaving one's name and address is dishonest and antisocial. It leaves somebody else to handle, with his insurance company, liability for damage that is not his fault. The motorist who drives off without stopping is avoiding his responsibilities and saving himself money at someone else's expense.
We therefore felt that it was not proper, even in the case of failure to report—which is dealt with by amendment No. 47—to go down below four points at the lower end of the scale. If we went below four points we would be inviting the magistrates to impose a less serious penalty than is imposed now for this offence. The discretion that we have given tends to take the upper level up rather than the lower level down. We think that to be right because, as I said, these cases are anti-social. None is completely trivial or insignificant. At the least, they are dishonest. There is concern about the growing number of hit-and-run offences, failure to stop, and failure to report. The police and many other people feel that it reflects in part the consequences of the breathalyser law that more and more people tend to race off without stopping after an accident, because they know that they are over the breathalyser limit and they seek to avoid the more serious penalty that follows from a breathalyser offence.

Mr. Dan Jones: The Minister spoke eloquently on what the Government intend to do in case of an accident. I humbly suggest that the Minister has left out one important point. What happens if the accident occurs as a result of a defect in a car?

Mr. Clarke: All types of offences can be raised, not least the fact of not complying with the construction and use regulations. That in itself carries three penalty points under the schedule. Other consequences follow if the owner of the vehicle is driving with the knowledge that he has a defect in the car. Various traffic offences may be committed if a driver knowingly does that, and plainly insurance liability will arise, too.
What we are talking about in respect of the amendments is accidents of any kind, whatever has been the cause of them. If a motorist is involved in an accident that causes injury to the property of a third party, or personal injury,


it is the driver's duty to stop and to report the accident. We are talking about the penalties to comply with that offence.
We have accepted the case for discretion on these offences. The discretion that we have tended to give is to enable magistrates to impose more serious penalties than they used to in the past. We feel that that is right, because these are, at best, anti-social offences. Sometimes, as with attempts to avoid the breathalyser law, they are serious offences. I am sure that magistrates and responsible members of the public will welcome the fact that magistrates are given more powerful penalties to impose when a serious case comes before the courts, although the case might not qualify for immediate disqualification.

Mr. Stott: The Under-Secretary of State indicated that we have now moved from the more party political contentious issues embodied in the Bill to an issue that is equally important but less of a party political nature. We are debating a road safety measure for the first time in a number of years.
On the Second Reading the Opposition complained that this road safety measure should not have been tacked on to the end of a contentious and politically divisive Bill. The Government, in their wisdom, however, saw the need to bring these measures forward. Therefore we have to debate the issues on their merits.
The Under-Secretary is right. We spent a good deal of time in Committee examining the proposals. At the time I indicated that I thought that the new proposals in schedule 7, as they related to a totting up of a number of points until 12 points were reached, when a person was automatically disqualified, probably constituted a better way of dealing with road traffic offences than was the case under the old regime. The way in which the original Bill was drafted, however, meant that several of my hon. Friends and, indeed, hon. Members on the Government side, were concerned about the allocation of points for particular offences. I am grateful that the Minister and the Government have actually taken on board and understood the feeling that emerged during the Committee. I see the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) nodding. He will recall that in Committee we had a long debate about whether magistrates ought to have discretion with regard to the awarding of points for failing to stop after an accident.
You may not be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was a tied vote in Committee and the Government won the vote only by virtue of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee voted, as he does normally, with the Government. However, I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken on board the valid points that were made during that debate. It was a constructive debate, in which the points were fully aired, and we had the benefit of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who was a magistrate. I do not see him here this evening, but he made several good speeches on this issue, drawing on his experience as a working magistrate in the courts and indicating to the Committee that it would be beneficial to magistrates to have a certain amount of flexibility when awarding penalties for failing to stop and failing to give particulars or failing to report an accident. Therefore, I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken these points on board and rewritten the Bill to incorporate the general will of the Committee as it was expressed when we were debating these issues.
The Minister will no doubt be aware that we tabled an amendment—amendment No. 23—which was not selected. It is an identical amendment to the one that we tabled in Committee. I now see the reason why that amendment was not selected. Clearly, in the Bill the Minister has taken care of the points that it raised.
Finally, I confirm one point on which the Minister laid a certain amount of stress—the question of failing to stop after an accident. This, I regret to inform the House, is a problematical offence. Only this afternoon, in relation to a further amendment, which the House will be debating a little later, I spoke to Mr. Roger Birch, who is the chief constable of Warwickshire and chairman of the Chief Constables' Association. He informed me by telephone this afternoon that the offence of failing to stop after an accident is growing. It is rather distressing to find that this kind of offence is taking place and that people are failing to stop and failing to report if they have an accident. Therefore, the House and magistrates generally ought to deal seriously with this offence, and I am pleased that this evening the message will go out to everyone concerned that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the increase in the number of offences that are taking place and that people who fail to report or fail to stop after an accident will be dealt with severely.

Mr. Michael Brown: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to speculate why people fail to stop and to comment on the fact that we were speculating in Committee that the reason was that they had been consuming alcohol.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) is absolutely right. We were speculating in Committee on the inordinate increase in the number of accidents that were reported where people failed to stop. One of the reasons that was contemplated during the Committee proceedings was that these people had consumed alcohol and that if they had stopped they would have been breathalysed by the police and thus have been liable to an automatic disqualification if their blood alcohol level was over 80 mg per 100 ml. That is a real problem.
There are later amendments that will allow the House, if it so wishes, to debate the merits of the breathalyser or the police powers as they relate to the breathalyser, but that is one of the real problems with people who fail to stop after an accident. They think to themselves that if they report the accident or get caught by the police they are between the devil and the deep blue sea—either they are done because they have failed to stop or they have been drinking and will therefore get a harsher penalty, so the best thing to do is to bolt for home and avoid the odious consequences of being breathalysed.
I think that it is absolutely right that this offence should be treated as a serious offence. The points awarded—between five and nine—are about adequate for the kind of offence that we are talking about, backed up by the additional strengthening in the Bill that the Minister has included a little later.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that that is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to demonstrate that this kind o f offence, and the increase in this kind of offence, ought to be stamped on very hard indeed. It is a pleasure to tell the Minister that the Oppostion welcome the Government amendments and will certainly give them a fair wind.

Mr. Parris: I, too, welcome these Government amendments. It is a tribute entirely to the power of advocacy of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary rather than to the strength of his case that he succeeded in defeating the amendment that I moved in Committee. I honestly think that my hon. Friend could have argued that any measure from Christmas trees to consular services was so intrinsic a part of this package of measures that the entire Bill would stand or fall with it and he would have been able to convince the Committee of it.
We have gone through the arguments for giving the courts discretion and there is no need to go through them again. The changes proposed by the Government are entirely sensible. Some of my hon. Friends and Members of the Opposition who supported me in moving my amendment in Committee may feel a little unhappy that the discretion given to the courts is generally a discretion in the upwards rather than the downwards direction. I am a little unhappy about that, but not very. The point is that the principle of discretion has been introduced and it will be up to the Minister, on the evidence that he gets from the courts and the police in the future, to decide how the discretion should be applied and whether the range should be altered. We now have the principle of discretion, and I welcome that.
This totting-up system was, even as initially proposed, a great improvement on what had gone before. This small but important refinement further improves that system, and I am glad that the Government have changed their mind.

Mr. Waller: In congratulating my hon. and learned Friend on accepting the arguments that were put forward in Committee, may I ask him whether any guidance will be given to magistrates on their discretion? As he said, there is a danger that different courts in different parts of the country will exercise their judgment in different ways. It is not possible at any time to avoid this entirely, and we know that as far as the generality of traffic offences is concerned there is a difference between the way in which courts in London and, say, in the North-West of England exercise their discretion in respect of fines and the power to use disqualification.
It is not possible entirely to avoid differences, but will any guidance be given to magistrates so that in relation to different kinds of offence—for instance, driving away without reporting an accident—they can exercise their discretion fairly.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I first thank the House for the way in which it has received the Government amendment. I acknowledge that it was a straightforward change of mind by the Government compared with the case that I originally put in Committee, and it was the result of reflecting on the obvious views of the Committee and the arguments that were then put forward. This means that at the very least all those hours that we all put in on the Standing Committee were not spent in vain, because we now have made quite a significant amendment to magistrates' courts powers.
The answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is that in this field, as in all others, it would not be right for the Government to start giving clear directions to magistrates about the kind of penalties that they might

impose. Parliament lays down a range of penalties and magistrates are there to exercise their judgment about the appropriate penalty to reflect the seriousness of each case.
The Magistrates' Association publish guidelnes for benches throughout the country, and sometimes benches in a particular county will draw up their own guideliines. Here, however, we are not talking about the level of fines. There is such a range of seriousness, for instance, in failing to stop alter an accident, that this is an area in which magistrates will have to apply their own judgment.
It is because of that range of seriousness, and because of the scope for responsible judgment, that the Committee prevailed upon the Government to put in discretion at all. The system is not in any way adversely affected by the change. It gives rise to the possibility of more flexibility in some offences in future, due to the powers in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said, and I am glad that at no stage has any hon. Member expressed doubts about the underlying policy.
The points basis for endorsing is undoubtedly an improvement on the present crude system of one endorsement for any offence, whatever its seriousness. It is fairer to the motorist, but it also gives an opportunity of reflecting properly the more serious traffic offences when they are committed regularly by offenders who flout traffic laws. I trust that after hearing our debate the amendment will prove acceptable to the House as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 13, line 42, leave out 'could' and insert 'would'.

No. 45, in page 15, line 25, after 'offence', insert
'(or, where a range of numbers is so shown, alter that range)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Schedule 7

POINTS TO BE ENDORSED

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 62, line 28, column 3, leave out '6' and insert '5–9'.

No. 47, in page 62, line 29, column 3 [Schedule 7], leave out '4' and insert '4–9 '.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in page 62, line 35, column 3, leave out '1' and insert '2'
This amendment has been tabled by the Government in direct response to arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) in Committee. He pointed out an anomaly in the Bill as drafted, between the one point that we proposed to impose where someone was convicted of refusing to submit to a test of eyesight and the two points imposed for "driving with uncorrected defective eyesight." They both sound unusual offences. They are not common, but arise basically when a driver drives either without wearing his spectacles or when his eyesight is so defective that it is time that he went to an optician to have his eyes tested and acquire spectacles.
As the Bill stood, the provision gave rise to the possibility that someone who was stopped in circumstances that led the police to question his eyesight would realise that he was better off if he refused to take an eyesight test than if he admitted that his eyesight was defective and had a penalty imposed. On the other hand, it is almost certain that anyone who refuses an eyesight test


is offending even more seriously than the average case, because he must know almost certainly that he will fail the test if he agrees to take it.
The amendment proposes, therefore, that two points should be imposed for either offence. My hon. Friend has done the House a service by pointing out an inconsistency that certainly needed correcting.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23

PROVISIONAL LICENCES AND DRIVING TESTS

Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 17, line 30, at end insert—
'In section 88(4) of the 1972 Act the following words are inserted:—
(c) a motorcycle for a period longer than the period prescribed for the holding of a provisional licence for a motorcycle under the regulations made under section 81(1)(d).".'.
Under the clause the Secretary of State is taking power to refuse to renew a provisional licence to a motor cyclist who has not taken and passed the new two-part motor cycle test introduced by the Bill.
In Committee the Under-Secretary made it clear that it was the Secretary of State's intention, if this part of the Bill is passed unamended, to use this power to ban any motor cyclist who has not passed his test within two years of first taking out his provisional licence. The right hon. Gentleman intends to ban him from driving for at least a year.
This is a new form of penalty—a riding ban, a ban on having a licence, not for having committed any crime but for having failed a test, or to have taken a test. It is unjust and inequitable, because it is proposed to apply this form of penalty to one type of vehicle user only. I shall explain later that, strictly, it does not apply only to those vehicles.
If tonight we were dealing with a part of the Bill that proposed that everyone who sought to ride on a provisional licence for any type of vehicle should, if he failed to pass the test within two years, be banned from driving for a period, at least it would be equitable as between all types of vehicle user. The freedom to choose which type of vehicle he or she should learn to drive is one with which the House should not interfere. I hope that the great proponents of individual freedom who grace the House of Commons Benches will support the amendment.
What makes the proposal even more unjust is that there is a type of person who, under the Bill, will be allowed to drive the same type of motor cycle as a person who has a motor cycle provisional licence, and who will be able to go on riding the motor cycle without ever being required by the law to take the test. I refer to a person who has a car driving licence. People who have a car driving licence will be able to hold that they can use it as though it were a provisional motor cycle licence and have no need to take the test.
If any hon. Members have their driving licence with them, and happen to have it merely as a result of having passed a test for one type of vehicle, namely, a car, they will see that the licence bears the words:
This licence has the effect of a Provisional Licence to drive motor vehicles of all other groups".
Mine also has a D and an E on it, so mine indicates that I have passed the motor cycle test as well. I therefore have no personal interest. I declare a lack of personal interest

in the carrying of my amendment, as I would not be required to take a test as a result of the amendments being passed.
The effect of the amendment would be to place the car driver using his car driver's licence as a provisional motor cycle licence under exactly the same legal obligation to take the new two-part motor cycle test as anyone who had obtained a provisional motor cycle licence. I know that hon. Members who have not addressed themselves to this problem before must be surprised, or even astounded, that the Government should introduce such a draft provision.
In fairness, I should regale the House with the three reasons given by the Government in Committee for having this provision. Their first reason was that a car driver must have some road experience and therefore should he able to go on driving a motor cycle irrespective of how many times he fails the motor cycle test.
The second argument adduced by the Government was that car drivers are not like motor cyclists. They are prone to take tests and therefore they should not be put under the same restriction. The third argument—this will not come as a surprise to some of older Members, because they have heard earlier Conservative Ministers advance it—was that if they were to treat all road users equally in this respect it would involve Government officials in a great deal of work. The officials would have to write to all car licence holders to tell them that henceforth they could not use their licences indefinitely as motor cycle provisional licences.
I think that all the Government's arguments can be answered easily. As to the one about their experience, as an ex-motor cyclist, if I can put it that way, I first question whether the experience of driving a car is necessarily a suitable experience to qualify one to drive a motor bike, but I do not hang my objection to the Government's using this argument on the basis of motor cycle experience. If a car driver, by virtue of having passed a driving test, has the advantage of road experience, it should make it that much easier for him to pass a test on a motor cycle, so that is no reason for excusing him from taking a test.
9.45 pm
On the second argument, that a motorist is more likely to take a test than is a motor cyclist, in this case it will be no hardship for him to be put under the same requirement as motor cyclists to take the motor cycle test.
As to the third argument, I am quite fascinated at the proposition that we should not amend the Bill to treat motor cyclists and car drivers equally when they learn to ride a motor cycle, merely because it would mean that a number of officials employed by the Department of Transport would have to write to people. If we were to reject all legislation that required officials in Government Departments to send people any sort of documents or messages, or regulations, we would pass a great deal less legislation. I cannot think that the House regards that as a satisfactory sort of reason for carrying forward, in this Bill, this quite unjust and inequitable proposition.
The proposal rides roughshod over considerations of equality of treatment or justice to motor cyclists. Such a proposition put forward in respect of car drivers would be rejected as quite unfair and unreasonable. Therefore, I hope that the House will pass the amendment tonight and offer some elementary redress against the provision that is by any test monstrously unequal in its treatment of citizens on the basis of the vehicle on which they choose to learn to ride.

Mr. Fry: I first declare an interest as an adviser to the Motor Cyclists Association, which has made representations to my hon. Friends on this particular subject. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) has done the House a service by putting forward the amendment tonight, because he has highlighted something that has tended to be forgotten during the passage of the Bill, except perhaps in speeches from my Back Bench colleagues.
There is a danger in the legislation that the Government are considering. They appear to be singling out motor cyclists to try to make some kind of example of them. I am aware of the number of accidents that young motor cyclists have. I am aware of the need for training; indeed, the industry itself has done a tremendous amount to try to encourage training, and it is bringing forward substantial amounts of money in order to make that possible. But there is a growing feeling—I detect it in my own postbag, and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is receiving letters, too—that many motor cyclists fear that they have been picked upon and, even though the accident statistics are worrying, in view of the enormous increase in motor cycles they are by no means as bad as they would be if all motor cyclists could be tarred with the brush of being irresponsible or totally untrained.
My objection to the form that the amendment is taking is that far from correcting that viewpoint it compounds it. I would much rather that the right hon. Gentleman had moved in the other direction and tried to instil slightly more reality into the proposals that are in the Bill at the moment.
For example, as I understand it, the prohibitions upon the issue of a licence do not apply to mopeds. I should have thought that if we are going to have this kind of change in the law it should at least be continuous right through the range of two-wheeled machines. I feel that the Government have not made it clear why they are not including mopeds when we know perfectly well that many particularly untried riders use these as their first way of getting on the road.
Is my hon. and learned Friend absolutely satisfied, and can he give a guarantee, that the period that a motor cyclist will have to wait before gaining a test will be reasonably short? Over the past few years we have all heard numerous complaints about the long delays in the testing of all kinds of road vehicles, and if the Government are going to say to a certain group of people who want to go on the road that after a certain date they will not be able to use the machines that they have purchased with their own money, there is a strong obligation on the Government to ensure that at least people can take and retake a test within a reasonable period.
That is the kind of case that the industry wants put to the Minister. The industry has behaved in a responsible manner. It does not want to try totally to alter the legislation that is being put forward; it wants to try to see that the terms of the legislation are applied in a way that is realistic and does not appear to be designed purely to victimise motor cyclists.
I know that my hon. and learned Friend does not wish to do that, but there is a danger of the Government's action being interpreted in this way and that is why, although I cannot endorse the terms of the amendment, I thank the right hon. Member for having put it forward tonight.

Mr. Parris: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry). The present proposals for dealing with provisional motor cycle licences are inequitable and they will not work in practice; they will cause an immense amount of trouble if my right hon. Friend decides to invoke them, and I am not sure that he will.
The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) proposes that as this inequity applies only to motor cyclists on provisional licences and does not apply to motor car drivers using their motor car licences to drive motor cycles, the inequity should be extended to cover motor car drivers. I do not think that by extending an inequity so that it covers every class of person one necessarily promotes equity, and for that reason I cannot support the amendment. I understand the spirit in which it was raised and I wish that we had an opportunity to discuss the wider issue of provisional motor cycle licences.

Mr. Waller: I think that my hon. and learned Friend has done a great service to the cause of road safety and to the future of motor cycling in putting forward the changes that are included in the clause. The alterations and the course that he is embarking on is extremely imaginative, and deserves every possible success.
I do not intend to repeat the arguments that I put forward on this point relating to the length of time that a provisional licence holder can ride before he passes a test, because I spoke on this at great length in Committee, but I would like to associate myself with the viewpoint expressed by my hon. Friends and to say that this is the one flaw in what is a good clause. I hope that when the length of time that is to be put forward is considered my hon. and learned Friend will give consideration to the arguments that have been expressed and will endeavour to ensure that this aspect of the new clause is as fair as possible to motor cyclists.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I suppose that I ought to be happy that my critics are divided amongst themselves. The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) believes that he has identified an injustice. He therefore suggests that that injustice should be extended to other car drivers. That is not a view that commends itself to my hon. Friends, but I will tackle the serious point that everybody is making.
Obviously, there are hon. Members who are not altogether happy about the requirements that we are proposing, for which clause 23 paves the way, whereby a holder of a provisional motor cycle licence will have two years within which to pass the second part of the new two-part Department of Transport test arrangements, and if he does not pass that test within two years there will be a year within which he is not able to ride motor cycles at all before he can have a provisional licence once more.
Doubts are being expressed about this two years on, one year off system, as some people have called it, although I hope to satisfy the House that, looked at as it will work in practice, it is not a new ban or a new penalty. It is actually a commonsense road safety measure.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I understood the Minister to say that if a motor cyclist did not take the test within two years he could be banned for a year. We all know of the gross maladministration and neglect of Swansea, the computer and the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department, which


for about three years did not know whether they were coming or going. They could not answer letters, let alone get the thing going. If a motor cyclist is able and willing to take the test but, because of the gross maladministration and neglect of the Department, finds that because he did not get his test within the two years—not through his fault, but through the fault of the Department—must he stand down for 12 months?

Mr. Clarke: The performance of Swansea is greatly improved compared with what it was. The level of complaints reaching me about Swansea is certainly very much less than arose from Swansea a few years ago. Secondly, the booking of driving tests is no part of Swansea's responsibility in any event. It is done by the local driving test officers. Therefore, Swansea will not have a hand in this. I shall return in due course to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) about the length of time that people have to wait for tests where they are being booked.
As I have said, I appreciate that a feeling has been expressed to hon. Members by some of the motor cycle interests that the motor cyclist is somehow being persecuted, singled out and not understood by the Government in producing their road safety proposals. That is not the case. We have no intention whatever of discriminating against motor cyclists. We have no feelings of disapproval whatever towards motor cycling as a hobby. We are motivated only by concern about the terrifying accident figures that are being experienced in this country, particularly among young, inexperienced motor cyclists.
The first point that I should like to make is that all our measures are directed only at the beginner who is in the process of acquiring an expertise and road sense to go safely on the road. The experienced motor cyclist, including the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness, who has passed his motor cycle test, will not be affected or inhibited by any of our proposals.
There was a case, however, for looking at the motor cycle area again because, although my hon. friend the Member for Wellingborough was quite right when he said that there is increased motor cycle usage, which in part leads to higher accident figures, the present accident record of the motor cycle is far worse than for other vehicles. It is a more dangerous and exposed vehicle and requires a given level of expertise to manage it. Other things being equal, it is estimated that it is roughly 30 times more dangerous to ride a motor cycle on British roads than it is to drive a motor car. The unfortunate results are that more than 1,000 people are being killed each year in motor cycle accidents, and something had to be done to try to decrease that very large-scale loss of young life.

Mr. Sheerman: May I make this point to the hon. and learned Gentleman? He knows very well that I consider compulsory training off the road before someone takes a bike on to the road to be essential today. I support the amendments that are before us this evening, but what worries me and worries many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, is not only whether this is a practical suggestion but the question of enforceability. There is growing evidence of young people ignoring the regulation. If their licences are taken away, they will still drive. That is the problem. We do not want a generation of young

motor cyclists, who could not care less about the law in any respect, being on the road and free-wheeling without a licence.

Mr. Clarke: The question of enforceability applies when it comes to driving without a licence generally. Obviously, penalties follow people are discovered to be driving without a licence. The arrangements which we are proposing are no different from the existing arrangements which apply when the police have to enforce the law and detect people who are riding unlicensed on the roads.
Let me answer the points made about balance and singling out motor cyclists. All that we are trying to achieve in the case of motor cyclists is that most of them will move as quickly as is reasonably possible to get to the standard required to get through a Department of Transport test.
In getting up to that standard and getting through the test, we also want most of them to have some kind of skilled training. We think that this is the best way of improving their safety on the road fairly quickly and the best way of getting them up to the required standard.
10 pm
Under the present arrangements, car drivers do not need any inducement to do either thing. Car drivers, driving on provisional licences, are required to be accompanied at all times by qualified drivers. That leads most provisional licence-holding car drivers to seek to get through their tests as quickly as possible in order to have complete freedom to use their cars and to go on the roads unrestrained. No such requirement can be imposed on motor cyclists. We cannot make requirements that they should have a qualified licence holder on the pillion all the time because in many cases that would increase the danger of inexperienced drivers. In practice, we also find that car drivers go for professional training. About 95 per cent. of car drivers who present themselves for a test have gone to a school of motoring, often paying substantial fees to a driving instructor to get themselves up to the required standard.
No one knows what proportion of motor cyclists go for any kind of training course. The best "guesstimate" is that only about 15 per cent. of new riders do so. Far too many rely on picking up the skill for themselves, with a few tips from friends on the road.
Our arrangements therefore propose inducements for the beginner motor cyclist to take a course of training and, within a reasonable time, to reach a standard required to pass the present Department of Transport test. The new arrangements will comprise two parts of a test. Both parts will have to be passed within two years. This is intended as an inducement to the sensible motor cyclist to get through the two tests as quickly as possible. The first part will be a new simple test of road handling off the road on a large flat area. It will usually be carried out by approved training organisations. The sensible motor cyclist, proceeding to get up to the full licence within the two years that the regulations permit, will, I trust, take the commonsense approach and get in touch with an approved training organisation as soon as possible. That training organisation will put him through a course designed to take him through the first test. We also hope that motor cyclists will undergo training designed to take them all the way up to the Department of Transport test, which will have to be taken within two years if our regulations are made.

Mr. Fry: Will my hon. and learned Friend address himself to the young person who passes the car test first and then goes on to ride a motor cycle without any form of training? Is he not in almost as great danger as the present motor cyclist who has no training?

Mr. Clarke: It is true that the arrangement will not apply to someone who holds a full licence to drive a car, a motor tricycle—the Reliant-type vehicle—or a moped. It is the apparent anomaly to which the amendment draws attention that if one has a full licence for one of those vehicles one will be able, as now, to ride a motor cycle with a provisional licence and no time limit will be imposed. The only new limitation that the Bill will impose on full licence holders for a car, tricycle or moped is that they will be confined, probably from October 1982, to the new, smaller size, learner motor cycle and will not be able to go beyond it unless they get through a full Department of Transport test.
The right hon. Gentleman indicated the arguments that I used in Committee. Although they do not appeal to him, they still strike me as sensible and defensible reasons for our proposals. Someone who holds a full licence on a car has gone through the full Department of Transport test. More than that, before actually presenting himself for the test he will have ridden round with a qualified driver accompanying him for a considerable time, acquiring ability in the handling of a car and actually acquiring experience of road conditions, road craft and familiarity with traffic. Although passing the Department of Transport test entitles him only to go for a provisional licence for a motor cycle, he is in a different category from the total beginner, who does not have a full licence for anything and chooses to get a provisional licence for a motor cycle for what may be his first excursion in any kind of powered vehicle on the road.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that his hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) gets to the heart of the problem? I believe that many of the recommendations and much of the Bill are to be applauded in terms of motor cycle training and the new two-part test. However, the crunch issue is that nothing that is proposed in relation to the novice rider who is most likely to be among the 1,100 young people killed, nothing that the Bill provides or suggests, will make any difference to the young man or woman getting on a motor cycle and driving on the public roads and killing himself or herself. The crucial time is the first six months. That is when such people generally get killed.
Secondly, if the Minister is right in saying that the provisional licence is built into a driving licence for a car, together with roadcraft and all the other things—I quite agree about that—that does not get over the central anomaly that the Government have failed to tackle—that is, that the most dangerous form of transport on our roads today is the one that is most available to young people.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman says that he is on the same point as my hon. Friend for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), but in fact he is on a totally different point, and is arguing quite the opposite argument from that which my hon. Friend has been putting forward. I was dealing with the point of the amendment which my hon. Friend was also dealing with, which is why we are proposing a slightly different treatment for the holder of a full car licence, full

motor tricycle licence and full moped licence. I was pointing out the distinction between someone who has got himself all the way through the necessary road experience and the Department of Transport test in one of those vehicles, and then decides to go out as a provisional licence holder on a motor cycle. I was talking about the difference between that person and someone who is a total beginner and does not have a full licence for anything.

Mr. Sheerman: rose——

Mr. Clarke: Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes again, let me move on from the point that he is raising, which is beside the amendment. As I recall, he was alone in Standing Committee in feeling that we should not allow anyone to go on to a road at all on a motor cycle until he had had some form of compulsory training. Although I understand the motives that led the hon. Gentleman to that view, and that he is convinced that compulsory training is required off the road before anyone is allowed forth, that would be a very dramatic change from the present system. That change would not be supported by any of the training organisations.
We believe that the package that we are proposing, which, as I say, amounts to inducements to go in for training—inducements that will lead people, within the two years that we propose to require of them, through the part 1 test of road handling off the road, on to the part 2 test, the Department of Transport test, in the hands, we hope, of a training organisation—will be a drastic improvement. It is not necessary to go as far as the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Sheerman: May I correct the hon. and learned Gentleman on something?

Mr. Clarke: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman for the last time.

Mr. Sheerman: All right—for the last time. Perhaps I may correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was not the only person in the Standing Committee who thought thus. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench were with me on that matter, as he should recall. Also, I should like to point out to the junior Minister that Kawasaki, a major Japanese importer of motor cycles into this country, does not believe in this two-part test but believes that compulsory training off the road is essential. Graham Chatham, the biggest dealer in Scotland, believes that it is a death certificate unless we train young men and women off the road previously. There is tremendous cumulative evidence. It is wrong to suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I on the Front Bench were the only people who perceived the problem and were willing to act in a dramatic manner in order to stop these deaths.

Mr. Clarke: I am sorry that I had forgotten one of the comparatively rare occasions when the hon. Gentleman was in accord with his own Front Bench on the question of motor cycle safety. I am extremely impressed by this demonstration of solidarity this evening. The speech that introduced the amendment was complaining that the Government were persecuting motor cyclists, and the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government are not going far enough in restricting the ability of motor cyclists to go on the road until they have had some form of training. If the


amendment builds a bridge between them, I am impressed by it to that extent, but I do not think that it has a great deal else to commend it.
I hope that I have explained the reasoning behind the policy. Of course, the policy will get into difficulties if delays in getting bookings for driving tests mean that the two years operate as a penalty, even for responsible motor cyclists who are trying to get through both parts of the test and cannot arrange the tests in time. We are taking only a regulation-making power. We could adjust the time. The Government are merely being frank and saying that the present intention is wo years on and one year off. That is our intention because we are succeeding in minimising the delays in booking Department of Transport tests. We inherited enormous delays throughout the country because the recruitment of driving examiners had not kept up with the demand. We therefore exempted recruitment of driving examiners from all restrictions on recruitment of Civil Service staff into our department. We are building up a growing corps of driving examiners, and the average waiting time for tests is coming down satisfactorily, although serious problems still exist in the metropolitan area.
We shall not introduce the new two-part testing system until January 1982. If present trends continue, delays will have been reduced even further by that time. It will be two years after that, of course, before the first people will lose out if they fail the test. So we are talking about early 1984. The first part test should be carried out by raining organisations, and by that time the Department of Transport will be able to satisfy the demand for the second part tests without unreasonable delay.

Mr. Fry: In parts of the country where there is a disproportionate waiting time, will my hon. and learned Friend's Department make every effort to ensure that there is standardisation of waiting lists before the regulations are put into effect?

Mr. Clarke: There is nothing to stop people from applying for a test outside the area where they live. People who live in the metropolitan area would be well advised to consider towns just outside the area. However, that is only a short-term expedient. The idea is to get waiting lists down to an acceptable level throughout the country, and we are devoting particular attention to the London metropolitan area, where the worst problems now occur. Clearly, we shall try to get examiners up to the necessary standards in places where at present we are not meeting the demand.

Sir Albert Costain: In my area there can be a delay of up to six months. If a person fails a test and cannot book another test within the period because an examiner is not available, does he have to wait a year, even though it is not his fault?

Mr. Clarke: It will be necessary for the motor cyclist to book a test within the relevant period and get through it, but if he gets a provisional motor cycle licence and realises that he has two years in which to pass both hurdles the sensible motor cyclist will get on with the first part by getting in touch almost immediately with the training organisation that can take him through the course as soon as possible to allow him time for two or three shots at the full Department of Transport test. That is the answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman).
People who apply common sense and judgment to the proposals will get themselves on to a training course early on and tackle the course within the two-year limit that we are laying down. We are confident that the training organisations will come forward and obtain approval for the part one tests and satisfy the considerable demand. We are also confident that by 1982–84 we shall be able to satisfy the demand for the second part tests without unreasonable delay.
I am in no doubt the desirability of the package, because something is needed to make young motor cyclists pass tests and to get rid of the present unfortunate practice whereby too many motor cyclists carry on for ever on L-plates without any serious intention of passing even the present Department of Transport tests. The needs of the situation are sufficient to justify this regulation—making power, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Booth: The amendment has enabled us to range over a number of the practical difficulties that arise from the motor cycle provisions of clause 23 and some of the resentment and discrimination that arise from the clause, as well as some of the wider injustices. I make no complaints; I referred to some of them in introducing the amendment. But I ask Members of the House, before voting, to consider not why that issue is related to clause 23 but the very simple and direct purpose and effect of the amendment. All that the amendment does is to impose upon one group of people who ride around on motor cycles with one type of provisional licence the same requirement as is placed upon another group who ride around 'with L-plates with another type of provisional licence.
The Under-Secretary of State gave the game away in his final sentences. He said that what we want to do is to stop people riding around indefinitely with L-plates. That is exactly what the Bill fails to do, because once a person has a licence for another category of vehicle he will be able to ride around indefinitely with L-plates on a motor cycle. What I and my hon. Friends have done, perhaps unwittingly, in tabling the amendment is to achieve the Under-Secretary's purpose by saying that if regulations are made preventing one group from riding around indefinitely with L-plates, no other group shall escape; they will all be required to take the test within the same period or face a ban. It does not deal with all the injustices and inequities, but it removes one which, on the Under-Secretary's own submission, is an important one and one which the Government are seeking to deal with in the Bill.

Mr. Sheerman: I should like to add to that, because this is something about which I feel very strongly. The Under-Secretary made a very unfair point in suggesting that I have been voting out of unison with my colleagues on many occasions. This is a non-party part of the Bill, and on two or three occasions, on drinking and driving I differed from my own Front Bench, which I think was a quite reasonable stance to take. At times, all men of goodwill on the Committee voted together.
What this amendment has done for the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary is to clarify their minds beautifully. We must cut through all the verbiage in the Bill. The intention, surely, was to produce proposals that would prevent 1,100 young men and women being killed on motor cycles. This is the most dangerous form of transport on public roads. It is 30 times more dangerous


than any other. The Under-Secretary said this very quickly, and this is becoming a habit. I noticed at Question Time today that there was talk of expenditure of £5 billion instead of the real figure in thousands of millions. It is 30 times more dangerous to drive a motor cycle than to drive any other form of transport. It is a death licence for a young son or daughter to get on to the road and be killed.
In the old days it was the traditional diseases that killed—polio, cholera and all the illnesses that came from bad sewerage systems, bad water and other such things. The good, sensible parents had their children inoculated against those diseases. The Opposition say, and we have some support, however muted, from the Government side, that the essential objective of the Secretary of State must be to stop 1,100 young men and women being killed every year, but his proposals will not achieve that objective.
We must change the system that allows young men and women to buy a shiny black and chrome motor cycle on their sixteenth birthday and zoom off to the funeral parlour. The Bill will not prevent that. We must train youngsters off the road before they get on to the road. Everything that the Under-Secretary said about the training of car drivers reinforces my belief that he has failed to meet the central problem.
The Budget, with its 20p a gallon on petrol, will drive more young men and women—indeed, middle-aged men and women—on to two-wheeled transport. The result will be more deaths, and we cannot afford that loss of talent, potential and manpower. The Bill was an opportunity to save those people. That opportunity has not been taken, and that is why I support the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 286.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 18, line 19, at end insert—
'(7) In section 85(2)(b) of the 1972 Act (fees for driving tests) after "such amount as may be specified in the regulations" there is inserted "or, in such cases as may be prescribed, specified by such person as may be prescribed".'.
This is a minor and technical Government amendment, covering a defect that has been discovered in this part of


the Bill. It concerns the arrangements that we are proposing to make for the new part 1 test, which will usually be carried gut by authorised testing organisations. We have already issued a consultation document to people interested in those matters, setting out the sort of criteria that we shall set down for organisations that wish to carry out the test and suggesting the nature of the test itself. We have made it clear that our present intention is that the fee for the part 1 test will be set at a level chosen by the approved organisation.
We have discovered that without an amendment to the law it would not be possible to do that. Therefore, the amendment provides the necessary powers to enable those approved testing organisations to set their fees when they carry out part 1 tests on our behalf.

Mr. Sheerman: We had a lengthy and revealing debate on the matter in Committee. The Government told us a great deal about how they envisaged part 1 of the test being organised and who would have permission to run it, but I am not sure how the Government organisation will be involved and who will set the fee.
Does the amendment mean that the Government are offering to train a certain number of people? Perhaps the parallel with the lender of last resort does not apply, but where a potential motor cyclist cannot get anyone to train him it appears that the Government will offer a scheme at a certain fee. Does the amendment enable the fee to be set at any level, a prohibitive level, or an average level?

Mr. Clarke: The Department of Transport will carry out some part 1 testing, and for the purpose will probably use our heavy goods vehicle driver testing sites, of which there are about 60. A person will be able to book a part 1 test with the Department, but we shall not offer training. A test facility will be available only for people who choose to come direct to us and pay our fee.
The Secretary of State will set the Department's fee. We have not yet decided exactly what it will be, but it will follow the usual practice of recovering the cost to the taxpayer and the Department of the testing arrangements.
We expect that the bulk of learner motor cyclists will seek to take the part 1 test with approved training organisations. We have set out our first thoughts about the basis upon which organisations will be able to qualify for our approval—the criteria and standards that we shall expect them to meet.
Where the part 1 test is conducted by an approved training organisation it will be left to that organisation to set its fee for the test. In practice, I suspect that many will include the test fee in the fee for the training course that they require the applicant to go through before arriving at the standard necessary to take the test. The amendment merely ensures that it will be lawful for the approved training organisations to set their fees in that way.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25

NEW PROVISIONS AS TO OFFENCES RELATING TO ALCOHOL AND DRUGS

Mr. David Ennals: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 18, line 43, leave out 'reasonable' and insert 'any'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 27, in page 18, line 43, after 'is', add
'committing or may be about to commit'.
No. 31, in schedule 8, page 64, line 48, leave out
'reasonable' and insert 'any'.

Mr. Ennals: We are ahead of schedule. We should at this time be dealing with seat belts. The public will consider it extraordinary that we are not able to debate an issue on which we know there is a majority in the House and in the country, includiing all the arguments put forward by the medical lobby and motoring and safety organisations. The new clause is sponsored by 126 right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is disgraceful that we are not allowed to debate it.
The amendment is a further attempt to clamp down on drinking and driving. I remember Jackie Stewart writing to The Times in February this year saying:
There can be no more fundamental crime than a driver causing injury or death where alcohol has impaired the driver's judgment and ability.
The House knows that an alarmingly high proportion of road accidents occur where one of those involved has drunk to excess. Indeed, in more than half of the serious accidents, when tests are taken it is seen that one person involved has drunk over the odds.
We are now dealing with the circumstances in which a police officer may insist upon a breath test. Mr. G. W. R. Terry, president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, and Dr. P. A. B. Raffle, chairman of the transport committee of the Medical Commission on Accident Prevention, both of whom were members of the Blennerhassett committee on drinking and driving, recently expressed their
concern that much of the debate on the power of the police to require breath tests has been clouded by the use of emotive phrases which do not bear examination … it does not help to use expressions such as 'we are not yet ready for random testing in a democratic society'. In the first place, the committee did not recommend random testing. Its report specifically states that random testing would be wasteful of resources.
I, too, oppose random testing. I believe that it would be wrong for policemen to be able on any occasion to stop a driver whom they had no cause to believe had committed or was about to commit an offence. That would be an infringement of civil liberties, apart from which it would be using the resources of the police in what I believe would be an improper way. Mr. Terry and Dr. Raffle continue:
The only question is whether to allow the police to use their trained power of observation and their discretion to require a test when they think it appropriate, or whether it is possible in any logical manner to limit that discretion by statute.
I submit that the inclusion of the word "reasonable" fetters that discretion, which I believe should be left to the police officers themselves. We are opening the way to a lawyers' paradise arguing about what is or is not a reasonable cause. We have seen so many cases on other subjects in which the definition of what is or is not reasonable has taken many hours and cost thousands of pounds in the courts.
If a policeman has any cause to believe that someone has committed or is about to commit an offence, he should be allowed to use the discretion that he is trained to use. Let us take a simple case. If a policeman sees a man stagger as he gets into his car, is that a reasonable cause? No doubt some hon. and learned Members here would say that that was not a reasonable cause, because the man might have a headache, he might have a limp, as I do, or he might have tripped over a brick, or whatever.
If we are serious about clamping down on drinking and driving, terms such as "reasonable" should not be written into the legislation. Mr. Terry and Dr. Raffle further state:
With the appalling number of casualties due to drink and driving and a steady erosion of the effectiveness of the present law, surely a more logical and reasoned view should prevail. It is not the responsible motorist who need fear the use of these powers. He or she will be the first to benefit if casualties are reduced by keeping the driver who drinks to excess off the road.
Do we believe that the policeman should be allowed discretion, or are we to put him at the mercy of the lawyers and make him fear that unless he has a profound and certain reason he will be challenged?

Mr. Fowler: I have been listening with attention. The right hon. Gentleman appears to believe that what he proposes in the amendments concerns breath tests, the administering of them, and the power of the police to stop drivers. The amendments relate to the powers of arrest, which are not the same.

Mr. Ennals: I believe that a policeman should have power to arrest if he has cause to believe that a man or woman has committed or is about to commit an offence. That applies to breath tests and general arrest.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: I thought that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) was against the "sus" laws. He appears to support "sus" on wheels.

Mr. Sheerman: I support the amendment after much consideration. We did not consider it in Committee. I am convinced that it has all-party support. Any strengthening of the law to make drinking and driving an unacceptable habit must be applauded. The most frightening statistic is not that of the number of drivers caught drinking and the levels that they measure in the breath test but the figure for motorists and motor cyclists killed between 10 pm and 3 am who in post mortem are found to have high levels of alcohol in the blood. That is the frightening statistic. That is how we know that drinking and driving cause so many deaths on the roads.
We must reduce the number of such deaths. We must try to be more bold, more definite and—some would say—more draconian. Perhaps we must be more draconian because of the commercialism which surrounds the glamour of drinking and suggests that one should drink as much as one can in order to become virile and a man. Perhaps a great deficiency of our Chamber is that hon. Members do not watch enough commercial television. Those of us who see commercial television are appalled at the brewing industry's attitude to drinking and driving. I shall give one example of a pernicious advertisement that is relayed time and again on a commercial television channel. It concerns something called the "Guinness supporters' club". We may smile. It is a humorous advertisement. It may capture our imagination. It is a very slick and well-done advertisemen——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but the amendment concerns drinking and driving, not television.

Mr. Sheerman: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will bear with me for a moment. I shall explain why the amendment is necessary. I am trying to

balance a firmer legislative resolve against the pressures that exist outside the House, which force people to believe that it is acceptable to drink and drive.
I used the example of the "bottle of Guinness supporters' club" because recently I objected about it to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The advertisement shows a gentleman lying underneath a milk float because he cannot get it to work. He is then pictured going down to his local pub and imbibing several bottles of the magic potion, Guinness. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) knows, and as John Havard, secretary of the British Medical Association rightly said during a "Man Alive" programme on the greatest epidemic of our times—a great programme on road safety—alcohol is an anaesthetic. Getting into a car after drinking is like getting into a car after having had an anaesthetic in an operating theatre.
Regardless of that fact, after the man has replenished himself with Guinness, the advertisement shows him revitalised. His mechanical abilities appear sharpened. The advertisement does not show that many deaths and injuries on the road and in industry are caused by drinking. Immediately, the man mends the milk float. At the end of the commercial he disappears down a country road driving his float at a rate of knots. The amendment represents a legislative corrective. We should adopt a firmer attitude towards drinking and driving in order to counterbalance the dereliction of duty that leads advertisers to encourage people to drink and drive.

Mr. Lawrence: My remarks will be brief. The contributions made by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) have brought me to my feet. They demonstrate their manic and obsessive attitude towards this area of legislation.
The amendment seeks to delete the word "reasonable". It seeks to allow police officers to take action that might not be reasonable. That is absurd, because I have heard the right hon. Member for Norwich, North speak most creditably and strongly on the subject of "sus" and civil liberties. This amendment contradicts that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said, the amendment represents a sort of "sus" on wheels. It seeks to take away a restraint that exists when a police officer considers whether to arrest, or to take action under the criminal law. It would remove a restraint on the police to behave in a responsible, ordinary and objective way.
The second example was given by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that he wished to see no random testing. But once one applies the subjective test and takes away the objective test, one is closer to random testing than at present.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree with the proposition that under the amendment the court will be required to consider whether there is a cause? That implies an objective test. The court will be obliged to consider whether a reasonably-minded constable, faced with the circumstances, would come to the conclusion that there was a cause. That being so, we are back to all the problems that the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) posed.

Mr. Lawrence: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is no merit in removing a word such as "reasonable",


which is the ordinary word employed by the courts, and placing upon the courts the temptation to reconsider the meaning of "cause" in the context mentioned by my hon. Friend. The whole thing is nonsense. It is not necessary to point out that it is nonsense, but it underlines the whole attitude of the Opposition throughout this legislation.

Mr. Fry: I do not want to speak at length, but we should consider the two amendments together. They drastically change what I regard, as a layman not a lawyer, as the common-sense attitude to this part of the Bill. If we remove "reasonable" and insert "any" and add
committing or may be about to commit
we are, in effect, considerably extending the right of arrest.
I ask the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) whether that is the intention. We want to stop those people who might be tempted to drive with an undue amount of alcohol in their blood, but surely we do not want to introduce possible aggravation between the motorist and the police. I know that in the time that he has been a spokesman on this subject, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has always been aware of the tender area of relationships. Therefore, because it is a considerable departure from what was intended and from the common-sense attitude among motorists and others, I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will resist the amendments.

Mr. Fowler: First, in reply to the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) no one is disputing the need to tackle drink-driving. That is why we have introduced legislation. It is agreed on both sides of the House that that is a problem to be tackled. The Government are tackling it for the first time in 15 years.
If the intention is to introduce amendments concerned with the application and administration of breath tests, the amendments are proposed to the wrong part of the Bill. We debated that in Committee. The amendments were then tabled to the correct part of the Bill—paragraph 7(1) of schedule 8. Amendment No. 31 has been tabled to paragraph 7(5)(a). We are dealing there not with the kinds of restrictions and regulations with which a policeman should be concerned before he administers a breath test but with the powers of arrest.
11 pm
It is absolutely right to expect the police to have reasonable cause to suspect that someone has committed an offence before they arrest him. I do not think that the wording suggested by the Government imposes an unnecessary or restrictive provision on the police. The Bill is an improvement on the existing legislation because it treats both offences, impairment and excess alcohol, in the same way. It enables the police to arrest on reasonable grounds of suspicion of an offence, whether under section 5 or section 6 of the 1972 Act. I understand that it has been welcomed recently by the Police Federation.
Amendment No. 27 would extend the power of arrest to cases where a person may be about to commit an offence. I think the House would agree that that is draconian in the extreme. I agree with the argument that we all want to do what we can to stop people from committing drinking and driving offences because of the

dangers involved, but most people genuinely and objectively looking at that amendment would say that it takes the powers far too wide. Anyone who happens to have been drinking and happens to have his car key with him could, under this provision, be arrested, no matter how much he protested that he had no intention of going anywhere near his car.
I cannot believe that it was the intention of either my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) or the right hon. Member for Norwich, North to go as far as that, but that is what has been tabled by them. It is not unreasonable for the police to wait until such a person is starting his car before they stop him on suspicion of impairment. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend, whose name appears first on the amendment, might agree in the light of my remarks, that it would be right to seek leave to withdraw it at a suitable stage.
On the general point concerning random tests—or what the Blennerhassett committee described as unfettered discretion—I recall that an amendment to give the police unrestricted power to test was debated extensively and rejected by one of the biggest majorities in the Committee, by 14 votes to 4. One of the reasons for its rejection, and one of the reasons why the Government are opposed to this kind of proposal, is that nothing is more important than that we should ensure good relations between the police and the public.
Nothing is more important in that area than having good relations between the police and the motorist. It was one of the crucial aspects pointed out by the 1962 Royal Commission on the police. I do not believe that those relations will be improved if motorists find that they are being stopped without good cause. I do not believe that the present powers of the police are unduly narrow or hinder them in the performance of their duty at the Christmas or New Year periods.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern about improving the deterrent effect of the law. In my view, the law will be improved not by giving the police wider powers to test but by increasing the level of police enforcement. One of the central aims of the Bill's proposals is to help the police in this respect by improving the procedures, so that they spend less time in the police station and more time on the road enforcing the law. We are at one on that.
We have sought in the Bill generally to cut the procedures. We have made other improvements, but I do not believe that we should go to the extent of having random tests. Even if I believed that we should do that, I would still have to advise the House that the amendments before it are simply not the way to achieve it. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, on reflection, to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Adley: Because of the speed at which we are rushing ahead with the Bill, I apologise for not hearing the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), who is my co-partner in this proposal. I did, however, hear the speeches of my right hon. Friend and one or two that preceded it. I accept that the amendment is not necessarily in the right place, but my right hon. Friend will understand the problems of those who, at this stage of the Bill, feel that it is better to debate an imperfect amendment or an amendment that is not necessarily in the right place rather than have to fume over an unselected amendment or an unselected new clause.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will not mind if I try to answer one or two of the points that he has made. I assume that all hon. Members agree that drunken driving is undesirable and that we should aim for its reduction or prevention, The questions that arise are how this should be done and what is the social cost involved. The answer to the first question is the objective of the amendments. The cost is the point of contention.
My right hon. Friend's contention is that the social cost in terms of relations between the public and the police would outweigh the social advantages to be gained by the reductionin drunken driving that the amendments might produce. That is matter of opinion that cannot be tested until put into operation. I would, however, submit that the chief constables of Warwickshire, Nottinghamshire and Staffordshire and many more would disagree with my right hon. Friend. They do not share his fears that the proposals for random testing or preventive testing would have the effect that he suggests.
I do not believe that the extra power granted to the police would be abused. This view is shared by the chief constable of Dorset, who maintains that the Road Safety Act has lost its impact and is no longer the deterrent that it used to be. The chief constable is concerned about the Bill's provisions relating to the motorist and the police officer who may be a trespasser. His argument is that while the Bill was originally designed for the protection of the motorist who arrives home, the possibility of a wider interpretation, such as of a farmer going into his own field to claim that the police were trespassing, is a potential problem in the Bill that has not been adequately considered.
The Bill as it stands will be a paradise for lawyers such as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who, I know, is interested in this aspect. I recognise that there are differing views. I maintain that the view of the police about their powers is not clear. Is it, therefore, any wonder that the view of the public is less clear?
If the House makes a clear decision—it will clearly not do so tonight—in favour of increasing the powers of the police randomly to test people, such as those coming out of pubs, where they may have reason to suspect drunken driving, this will have a powerful deterrent effect. Parliament has a duty to make its voice heard on this and other controversial matters of road safety. We are here to do what is right and not simply what is popular.
I am prepared, in view of the remarks of my right hon. Friend, to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, because as he says—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask leave to withdraw the amendment, because he did not move it.

Mr. Adley: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am prepared to accept the proposal of the right hon. Member for Norwich, North if he seeks to withdraw the amendment. I maintain, however, that sooner or later we have to deal with this problem.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) have allowed the House, in spite of the imperfection of their drafting of the amendments, to debate a very serious issue. Not since 1967 has the House had the opportunity to examine the

issue of drinking and driving as it relates to the breathalyser. Those of us who were fortunate enough to be members of the Standing Committee spent considerable time dealing with this problem. As I indicated to the Committee, I read the debates in the House in 1967. The debates that we had six weeks ago on this issue were almost an action replay of what took place in the same Committee Room 15 years ago.
There were differences of opinion on both sides. They were not political differences. They were individual differences as to whether the police should be given greater powers than they had. Hon. Members who were present at that time will recall that Mrs. Castle, in her original Bill, proposed that the police should have provision for random testing. The word "random" was removed at the request of the House because hon. Members reckoned that that would be a very provocative act. Therefore, the House had its way and removed that word from the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): Quite right.

Mr. Stott: The Patronage Secretary informs me that that was quite right at the time.

Mr. Martin Stevens: The question that those of us who oppose the amendment would put to the hon. Gentleman is this. Can he suggest, as he appears to be suggesting, that there should ever be an occasion when we should give a police officer the right to arrest a citizen without reasonable cause? It is as simple as that.

Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman has the advantage of having heard me in Committee. I do not believe that I have said anything from the Dispatch Box to lead him to that conclusion. I was merely indicating that the amendments give hon. Members an opportunity to express a view on a very serious issue. I think that the difference between the position in 1967 and our position now is that we have 15 years over which to look back to assess the effectiveness of the legislation.
It is true, as the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) and others have said, that when the earlier Bill became an Act and the legislation began to bite, the deterrent effect of the breathalyser was very potent and it had a marked effect on people's drinking and driving habits. Regrettably, the statistics show all too clearly that that deterrent effect no longer exists. The original proposals were reckoned to save about 5,000 lives and 200,000 injuries annually. Regrettably, the latest Government statistics suggest an ever-increasing toll of death and injury and carnage on our roads because people are drinking and they are driving. The deterrent effect of the breathalyser has worn off.
In the road safety section of this new Bill the Government have included some provisions which tidy up certain problem areas and assist the prosecution of drunken drivers. However, speaking for no one other than myself, I have to say that, like the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington, I do not believe that the Bill's provisions will tackle the problem. We need a much tougher and better defined power for the police to operate. I am convinced of that, having spent the Christmas Recess reading the Blennerhassett report. If hon. Members have not read that report, I recommend them to do so. Judge


Blennerhassett makes a very cogent argument for increasing the powers in order to stop what is becoming a major problem.

Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend that this part of the Bill needs to be tidied up. Surely time will come when we have a Bill that is entirely concerned with road safety and that deals with the fundamental issues of seat belts and drinking and driving in a way that is not possible in a Bill such as this, which deals with many other issues.

Mr. Stott: My right hon. Friend is correct. I said earlier that it was regrettable that there was a road safety element in a party political and contentious Bill. I hope that at some stage we can have a road safety Bill, so that the House will have an opportunity to debate that serious subject.
I come back to what I was saying. We shall not resolve the problem unless there is a redefinition and a redetermination to introduce a deterrent effect into the law. The House of Commons makes the laws and we expect the police to carry out the laws that we make. However, we must be under no illusion about the outcome of those laws. The law that we are debating here is not working. Every year, 1,200 people are killed on the roads because of drinking and driving. Such drivers are a menace and a danger to innocent civilians.
I want to give some statistics. In the latest Home Office survey of 1979, the number of people who were charged witht drinking and driving offences, with over 150 mg per 100 ml in their blood, totalled 29,420. The list and the chart which are available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office, show that in all age groups from 17 to 60 the majority of people charged with drinking and driving have in excess of 150 mg per 100 ml in their blood. That demonstrates how dangerous the situation is. Moreover, those are only the people who have been caught and charged by the police. Goodness knows how many more are driving with the same amount of alcohol in their blood.

Mr. Sheerman: Does my hon. Friend accept it is irresponsible of certain hon. Members to try to diminish the notion of protecting the rights of the individual, in talking about protecting the individual from being breathalysed? One can turn on its head the concept of the rights of the individual. I notice that the argument generally comes from hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and Grantham (Mr. Hogg) who belong to that parasitic profession, the law, and who gain from the closed shop that deals in the greys, rather than the black and white areas. Does my hon. Friend accept that the rights of the individual also include the right not to be mown down by the drunken driver and the right not to have one's children mown down and maimed in that way?

Mr. Stott: My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) is a courageous individual, who feels deeply and passionately about this matter. His care and concern have brought about significant changes in legislation to protect young children in cars. I am therefore willing to accept an intervention from him at any time, but I hope that brevity will prevail in his future interventions.
I have always considered myself to be a civil libertarian and I have always defended civil liberties, but clearly there must be definable parameters to those liberties. If the preservation of civil liberties means that drivers can continue to kill themselves and others on the roads it is time to reassess those liberties.
The amendments are not satisfactory, and they may be withdrawn, but they have given us an opportunity to exercise our judgment and air our views on an important matter. I regret that the provisions of the Bill do not adequately tackle the problems of drinking and driving.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) should have thought fit to attack me without informing himself of my views. In fact, I am in favour of random tests—a position that I imagine would be adopted by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman appears to have misunderstood the meaning of the amendment that he purported to support. During his rather lengthy recent intervention he said that those of us who opposed the amendment were in favour of letting drivers get away without random testing. But the amendment has nothing to do with testing. It concerns arrest without a warrant, which is a different subject.
If the amendment were to achieve its objective it would remove all the fetters on the powers of the police to arrest. For the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), I find that wholly objectionable in principle.
There is another objection, which I do not suppose has struck the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East. If we removed from the law all fetters on the right to arrest we would remove a remedy from aggrieved persons. If someone is unlawfully arrested he has a claim against the policeman. But if we remove all the fetters we shall deprive those who are unfairly arrested of all remedy. That is a lamentable proposition.
I do not believe that the amendment, which is unjust, will achieve anything. It is put forward with the stated objective of curing some difficulties in the law and doing lawyers out of a brief. I am in favour of the latter proposition, but the amendment will not achieve it. The courts will never accept the view that a constable has cause to arrest simply on his say-so. The courts will say that the right to arrest will arise only if, objectively tested, there was sufficient cause to justify an arrest.
That takes us back to the present situation: would a reasonably minded constable believe that there was a sufficient cause to justify an arrest? The amendment is a waste of time, and should not be supported.

Mr. Roger Moate: The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) said that if an earlier proposition had been accepted we would probably now be discussing the question of seat belts. I endorse his remarks and record my view that had it not been for the procedural manoeuvrings of the Government, enthusiastically supported by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends below the Gangway, we would have been discussing a matter of considerable importance in the saving of life and the reductions of injuries.
The Government have misused the guillotine procedures to curtail——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must deal with the amendment. It has nothing to do with seat belts or misusing procedures.

Mr. Moate: I was simply endorsing a point that had already been made by the right hon. Gentleman and had, therefore, been accepted as being in order.
I think I have made that point effectively. Indeed, having agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in that respect, I had intended to disagree with the way he put forward the amendment. But then I heard the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who, on most matters of road safety, gets things completely and utterly wrong. He described the way that this had been proposed as manic. Frankly, I think that anybody who talks about the drinking and driving issue in those terms is totally misled and quite wrong in any of the arguments on road safety that he puts forward in the House. I suspect that my hon. Friend is not concerned with road safety in any shape or form. He is obsessed with libertarian considerations which have very little application to safety on the roads.
I am concerned with reducing the injuries and the numbers of serious casualties on the roads and with the saving of life. My hon. Friend is not. The time wasted by him on this issue in earlier speeches is an indication of his obsession with quite the wrong point on this whole question.
It seems to me that those who have supported the amendment have done a service to the House in raising the question of drinking and driving. I believe that in the Bill the Government have got it just about right. I believe that they have done a service to the country in introducing new breathalyser laws and that the new breathalyser machine, the new testing procedures and the proposals in the Bill will help considerably in reducing drinking and driving. The new breathalyser machine, which will have a considerable impact on the thinking of drivers, will be helpful.
If, however, anybody thinks that that is the end of the story, if anybody thinks that that leaves the law in a satisfactory state, I think that he—and I am thinking particularly of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton—is rather more manic than anybody else. How can it be satisfactory? I put it even to my hon. Friends who oppose the amendment, as in fact I do. How can they argue that it is a satisfactory state of the law that certain chief constables at certain times of the year can carry out random testing virtually without being challenged? How can they accept this and say that it is a reasonable procedure? Some chief constables can effectively carry out random testing, yet in other parts of the country certain chief constables say that they cannot do so.
The law is clearly in a grossly unsatisfactory state, and it is clear that the Bill will not finalise the situation or leave it in a state that will satisfy public opinion for very long. I would say, however, that there is a limit to how much the public are prepared to accept at one go. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken the right step forward in tightening up the law and simplifying the procedures, and I believe that that will help, but we shall be back debating this issue in years to come, or, perhaps, months to come. That is why I think that a reasonable job has been done in raising the issue in this way.
The law is rather more satisfactory as a result of a defeat inflicated upon the Government in Committee, for which

I am proud to say I voted. in that in future the power to stop somebody suspected of drinking has to be exercised by a policeman in uniform. This is also relevant to the appropriate schedule. It was quite right that we insisted that a policeman in uniform alone should have this power and that this constraint has been included in the Bill
It seems to me that the amendment is wrong in suggesting that we should delete the word "reasonable". Even if this is done, it will still provide that a constable may arrest a person without a warrant if he has cause. Surely, he would still have to establish in court that he had cause to suspect that a person had been committing an offence. I do not think that the removal of "reasonable"——

Mr. Grieve: Is it not plain that a cause that is not by definition "reasonable" is not a cause?

Mr. Moate: The inclusion of "cause" requires a test of whether there is a cause. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) said that this would remove the subjective cause and make it a more objective cause. That does not mean random testing as some have suggested.

Mr. Adley: If I gabbled earlier, may I repeat to my hon. Friend and my colleagues on the Front Bench that I recognise that the drafting of the amendment is far from perfect? The objective was to give the Chamber an opportunity to debate the issue. I hope that on that basis my hon. Friend will accept the defective drafting.

Mr. Moate: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I believe that he and others who are responsible for the amendment have done a service to the House in giving us an opportunity to debate, perhaps in a brief and unsatisfactory way, random testing. It was right to raise the issue. There will be the need at some other time for a further and extensive debate. Those who, like my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, have so irresponsibly condemned the amendment are wrong. I do not think that the amendment is right, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) has done a service to the House.

Mr. Ennals: I hope that the debate has been useful. The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and I tabled the wrong amendment in the right place or the right amendment in the wrong place. However, we have raised an extremely important issue which, I hope, will be considered in another place. The debate has revealed the inadequacy of the present law as it applies to testing and arrests. In all the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 8

PROVISIONS SUBSTITUTED FOR SECTIONS 6 TO 12 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1972

Mr. Stott: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 64, line 40, leave out from 'breath' to end of line 42 and insert
'if the person is in his normal place of residence, unless the constable has reasonable cause to suspect that the person has peen involved in an accident; and for the purpose of this subsection "accident" shall have the same meaning as in section 25 of the 1972 Act.'.
The amendment relates to a provision in the Bill which


shall not be taken to authorise a constable to require a person to provide a specimen of breath while the constable is a trespasser in a place from which that person is entitled to exclude him.
Serious doubts have been raised, especially among the Association of Chief Constables, which views the issue as the most important and serious in the Bill next to the non-implementation of the Blennerhassett report. This morning I spoke to Mr. Roger Birch, the chief constable of Warwickshire, who, in a letter to The Times, outlined his objections to this part of the Bill. I quoted to the Minister in Committee what Mr. Birch had written, namely,
If the clause becomes law a suspect driver impaired through drink, perhaps being pursued by the police after a non-stop accident, will be able to avoid the consequences of his action by taking refuge, for example, at his golf club, in his warehouse or even in his field if he happens to own one.
The Bill has not been amended since its consideration in Committee. The Minister said that he would think about this issue in view of the power of the arguments, but it seems that he has done nothing about it unless he plans to take action in another place. The clause prevents a police officer from exacting a breath test upon a person who is suspected of drinking and driving if that person has committed an accident and has made a bolt for his golf club, his lock-up warehouse or his lock-up paper shop, or has sat in the middle of a field that he owns. The person would be able to treat the police officer as a trespasser and therefore refuse in law to co-operate and to supply a breath sample.
I have already indicated that the crime of not stopping after an accident is on the increase. It is increasing because people wish to avoid being breathalysed. Therefore, they may go to their own homes. We are not suggesting that police officers should have the unfettered right to enter people's homes. We are saying that the law should not be drafted in such a way that it prevents a police officer from taking a breath test from someone suspected of drinking and driving and being involved in an accident.
Indeed, in Committee I pointed out that the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland said that the question of trespass was somewhat suspect in Scottish law. It tells me that that expression has no definite meaning in Scottish law. We suggest that it should be defined in the Bill. Indeed, unless a constable forces his way into a building, the owner of the land in Scotland would have no right to exclude him. Thus, the exception would appear to be of limited application.
I am waiting with bated breath for the Minister's response to what the Faculty of Advocates says about the drafting of this legislation. This is a worrying aspect of the Bill. I take seriously the exhortations made this morning by Mr. Birch. The police are concerned that their power will be limited and curtailed by the rather clumsy drafting at the end of paragraph 7(3) of the schedule. It is serious if police officers are prevented from carrying out their duty because someone can exclude them from places that he owns.
In Committee the Minister said that he doubted whether a police officer could be excluded from a golf club on the ground of trespass. However, I am advised that that may not necessarily be so. I am informed that certain county prosecuting solicitors could make out a good case to prove that it was trespass. The Minister may say that case law already exists. He may cite the famous case of Morris and Beardmore. In that case, the police officer entered the

man's home, was asked to leave, refused to do so, and breathalysed the man. Case law has been build up around the argument whether or not that was trespass.
I believe that a person's home needs to be defended in that respect. However, we should be able to take action if people are lucky enough to be members of golf clubs, or own any property, and use it as an excuse to break the law.
The incidence of leaving the scene of an accident is increasing day by day. It is a serious offence, about which chief constables are worried. I therefore wait with bated breath to hear what the Minister says, because he told us in Committee that he would think about the matter seriously and try to do something about it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There were allegations in the previous debate that the Bill might create a lawyer's paradise. Although some hon. Members present may be attracted by such a vision, I suggest that that is precisely what it will not do.
The previous legislation in 1967 was effective in its results for motorists, but as a result of its drafting it created considerable doubts and confusion in the courts as well as a great deal of litigation. Since 1967 it has been much in need of amendment. The purpose of dealing with drink-driving again in this year's Bill has been to remove many of those drafting errors and procedural difficulties, to simplify the law and to make it easier to enforce.
Having said that, I must concede that the amendment touches on one of the trickier areas of drafting. It has been giving some difficulty throughout the progress of the Bill, but this provision is not an attempt to pave new ground, to create new law, or to set up fresh obstacles for the police; it is an attempt to clarify the law, building on the existing case law, particularly the case of Morris and Beardmore, to which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Stott) referred.
As it stands, the Bill has separated out the offence of driving with above the permitted level of alcohol in one's breath from all the technical procedures that go before the charge and the appearance in court. It will no longer be possible for someone to escape conviction by arguing about the technicalities that occurred when he was required to give a breath test, or the precise grounds upon which he was arrested, and other such matters. Many of the problems that we are discussing here will not in the end affect the likelihood of someone being convicted if there is clear evidence of some sort that he was above the prescribed limit at the relevant time.
However, it is necessary in the Bill to lay down strict guidelines for, first, the circumstances in which the policeman should have the power of arrest and, secondly, the circumstances in which the policemen should be empowered to require a suspect to give a breath test. Those grounds are not confused, as was said in the last debate, but they are clearly set down in the schedule. We are concerned about the extent to which a policeman should have the right to require a suspect to give a breath test when the suspect is in his own home. That is what arose in the case of Morris and Beardmore.
It was established by the courts that in that case, when a policeman followed a motorist to his home and when in the home was required by the motorist to leave, but refused to do so, and then purported to require a breath test, it was an unlawful requirement, because the policeman was unlawfully there as a trespasser. That is the present law.
So far as I am aware there is no pressure to change that, because most policemen accept that the Englishman's home should be inviolable, in the ordinary cases of being required to give a breath test. For instance, if one took out any restraints on the policeman's ability to require a breath test anywhere, in theory it would be possible for a policeman to follow a suspect home, because he had seen that person commit a minor moving traffic offence. He could claim that one of his rear lights was out, or something of that sort. He could insist on the right to go into the suspect's home and to require a breath test. No one wants that.
On the other hand, serious doubts have been expressed by police forces and other people about the width of the words that we have used in that paragraph, and whether it might extend to protecting a suspect in places other than his own home. I make it clear that it is the Government's intention to confine the protection—if one can call it that—to a motorist to his own home. It is not intended to widen the exclusion of the police officer's right to other premises. If the present wording fails to achieve that I have no doubt that in another place the Government, assisted by their Lordships, will deal with that and make sure that the wording is put in order.
I have followed the arguments made by the police. They have been reproduced to some extent by the hon. Member for Westhoughton. Mr. Birch has expressed fears of the sort described. Some of the fears are wider than is necessary. All that the Bill prescribes is that the suspect cannot be required to provide a specimen of breath, whilst a constable is a trespasser in a place from which that person is entitled to exclude him. That does not mean that someone would be entitled to exclude a policeman from a golf club of which he happened to be a member or from premises of any kind that he happened to have entered. On the other hand, a person may be entitled to exclude a policeman from remaining in his—the person's—own home and to render a policeman a trespasser in his home. It is intended that that should be covered.
Other possibilities occur. It is arguable that someone would be entitled to exclude a policeman from his field or warehouse and render him a trespasser, but the number of cases in which the motorist will be able to speed away happily and leap into a nearby warehouse or field that he owns is limited. Nevertheless, I still concede that, because of the continuing dissatisfaction with the wording, we shall reconsider it. It is the intention to confine the exclusion of the policeman's right to the suspect's home. We trust that if it has not been achieved yet, the correct wording will be produced.
11.45 pm
The amendment raises one final point. The Opposition appear to be arguing that a person should be protected from the requirement to give a breath test in his own home except where he has been involved in an accident. I can see the attraction of that where a hit-and-run accident has occurred and the driver has fled to his home and insists on excluding the policeman so that he cannot require him to take a breath test, but accidents go much wider than that. Referring back to the debate about discretion on points, accidents can include a trivial bump between two cars, involving no more than slight loss of paintwork. Trivial cases would also be included.
There are also drafting defects. The words "normal place of residence" will give rise to considerable difficulty

in certain cases if one tries to define them—for instance, the vistor who happens to be staying for the time being away from his normal home. I do not rely on any more drafting points.
The Bill is not as defective as has been claimed. It seeks merely to confirm and to clarify existing case law. If by chance we have gone wider than we intended, that can be corrected in another place. We have not forgotten the undertaking that I gave in Committee. We shall consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Stott: I am conscious that this is a difficult area. The Department's lawyers may need a little more time to consider our objections and those of the police. The measure can be tidied up in another place, after consideration, so in view of the Minister's undertakings, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Fowler: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 69, line 34, leave out '40' and insert '35'.
The amendment carries out the undertaking given in Committee to change the prescribed limit for breath in the light of the new blood breath ratio that recent scientific work both here and abroad has shown to be more appropriate.
The background is set out in the paper on breath analysis, which I made available in the Library last week. Breath analysis has been used in other countries for some years. There is a relationship between the alcohol in blood and in breath, as there is between alcohol in blood and in urine. The ratio is considered to be 2,000:1; which means that 1 ml of blood contains the same quantity of alcohol as do 2,000 ml of breath. The breath/alcohol concentration produced by a blood/alcohol concentration of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood—the current prescribed limit—using the ratio of 2,000:1 is 38 micrograms per 100 ml of breath. The Government decided, therefore, that the prescribed breath limit should be 40 micrograms. However, there has been a great deal of further scientific work on the relationship between the alcohol concentration in the blood and in the breath.
In particular, the Home Office forensic science service has followed up data obtained from the field trials in which various breath analysis machines were tested. It is now clear that it is more appropriate to use a blood-breath ratio of 2,300 to 1. The breath alcohol concentration equivalent to a blood alcohol concentration of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood using this ratio is 35 mcg per 100 ml of breath. We are therefore proposing to change the prescribed breath limit to 35 mcg. This will ensure—I think that this must make sense, and this is entirely what it is about—-that all three prescribed limits, for breath, blood and urine, equate to each other and that a person will be treated the same whichever specimen he is required to provide.

Mr. Waller: The amendment carries out an undertaking made to me in Committee when I proposed that the limit that had been established should be reduced. If the change had not been made and we had stuck to the original figure of 40 mcg, it might have been taken by some that the new limit was higher than that which previously obtained. It might therefore have been thought by some drinkers who intended to drive that they could have one extra drink and get away with it. The amendment ensures that that will not be the case and that we shall


continue with the same kind of limit as has existed up until now. I welcome the amendment put forward by my right hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 30

NEW BASIS OF VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY FOR GOODS VEHICLES

Mr. Booth: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 20, line 15, leave out from 'hundredweight' to end of line 41 and insert
'shall be subject to regulations made by the Secretary of State subject to approval by a resolution of the House of Commons'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 34, in clause 31, page 22, leave out lines 3 to 11.

Mr. Booth: The amendment has two purposes. The first is greatly to simplify what has become an unduly complex clause. The second is to urge the Minister to use the powers that he will obtain from the clause as amended in a particular way. I cannot believe that the Minister and the parliamentary draftsmen, when they set out to define a power in clause 30, ever thought that they would end up with anything as complex as this.
First, the amendment is intended to define the factors which will be taken into account in determining the excise duty paid on heavy goods vehicles. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) depend upon the meanings of parts of tables in schedule 10. To discover the meaning of those various parts one has to turn to subsection (2), which defines for the purposes of the clause and the schedule to which it relates the gross weight and the train weight of a vehicle.
At that point one might imagine that one has discovered how the provision operates. One then finds, however, that subsection (3) contains a power for the Secretary of State by regulation to
"(a) substitute different definitions for those contained in subsection (2); and
(b) require axles of such descriptions as may be specified in the regulations to be disregarded for all or any of the purposes of schedule 10."
At the end of that long and complex process, the Minister has the power to define the factors which shall be taken into account when determining the rate of excise duty for heavy goods vehicles. The amendment replaces that complex mechanism by providing that the Secretary of State shall be able to make regulations subject to resolution of the House of Commons.
There is much sense in the argument that the taxation of heavy goods vehicles should be determined by a number of factors, including the gross weight, but it must be done in a logical and intelligent way. The logical and intelligent way of taxing heavy goods vehicles is in accordance with the maximum gross weight at which they are used.
The Armitage report concluded that the heaviest goods vehicles on our roads are used at the heaviest gross weights permitted by law, do the greatest damage to our roads and involve the greatest construction cost. Armitage found that they do not pay their true track costs. The lighter heavy goods vehicles sustain the track costs. Armitage also suggested that other factors could be taken into account in order to determine the cost of heavier goods vehicles on

the roads. That report also considered proposals for heavier goods vehicles, to which the Opposition are opposed.
For the purposes of defining a heavy goods vehicle and the factors to be taken into account, the Government have made clear—this was one of the virtues of the debate in Committee—that they want to use the plated weights of vehicles. The plated weights are the maximum weights that vehicles are constructed to carry. One type of vehicle never carries the maximum plated weight. I refer to vehicles normally used by own-account operators to carry light goods such as empty tin cans, paper tissues, potato crisps, breakfast cereals and so on.
Own-account operators sometimes buy high-volume vehicles capable of carrying greater weights than they require to cope with the high volume. That is sound commercial practice. However, if vehicles are to be taxed on the basis of a plated gross weight, that might cease to make sound commercial practice. It might be a financial incentive to have purpose-built vehicles which do not carry the same volume or have the same capacity.
Therefore, if the Minister has the power—granted to him by the House—to make regulations determining the factors to be taken into account for the purpose of levying the heavy goods vehicle excise duty, he should use it to permit a down-plating or the putting on of a special plated weight for the purpose of taxation on vehicles that are used only for carrying specific types of light goods.
12 midnight
The evidence as to how far the gross weight or axle weight of a lorry is a factor in road damage is difficult for a layman to assess and difficult for some technicians to judge. However, there seems to be a consensus among experts that the damage done to roads at the practical axle weights at which heavy goods vehicles operate varies to the fourth power of the axle weight. If that is so, a lorry with a 10-tonne static axle weight maximum—as opposed to an 8-tonne static axle weight maximum—could increase the damage done to roads by two and a half times. However, the difference in static axle weights is not great. If there were two and a half times more damage to our roads we should have to pay massive bills in order to maintain reasonable standards of road maintenance.
In Committee, an argument was adduced against this proposal. It was based on the difficulty of enforcement. In Committee it was held that it was relatively easy to spot someone in breach of plated maximum weight regulations, because a lorry would have to labour up a hill, with smoke puffing out of the exhaust. There are difficulties in enforcement. Highly specialised equipment would be needed. Alternatively, a Ministry of Transport inspector or a policeman would have to have the power to order the driver of such a vehicle to drive on to a weighing machine or bridge.
Under sensible regulations, those who could operate down-plated vehicles would be mainly large own-account operators. Their names are emblazoned in large letters on their vans. They would be very worried about the possible damage to their reputations if they were taken to court for allowing their vans to be used to carry something other than the specific goods for which they had been plated. Therefore, there is no great difficulty about enforcement.
In my constituency, Bowater—Scott has a modern tissue mill. It sends large vans out with tissue products. I cannot for one moment imagine that a manager of Bowater-Scott


would want to slip a few lead bars or heavy items into the bottom of a lorry in order to take advantage of a down-plating regulation. If he were caught doing that he would not be allowed to work either in the firm or in the industry. The industry has everything to gain from a sensible down-plating regulation and would take steps to ensure that it was not abused. It would not want to lose that advantage.
The Government may create one or two undesirable situations. I have already mentioned that if a specialised vehicle that was designed for high-volume, low-weight goods was used second or third-hand for carrying more than that, it could constitute a danger. There should be no incentive to allow such vehicles on our roads.
The other incentive would be for own-account operators to cease to be own-account operators and to turn their trade over to the hire and reward section. I do not want to speak against the hire and reward operators, but there is no evidence that own-account operators do anything other than operate their fleets as safely and efficiently as do hire and reward operators. There is evidence that some of those charged with breaches of traffic regulations are in the hire and reward section. We do not want to create either of those effects, but we want to simplify the clause without taking away any of the powers of the Secretary of State to produce proper regulations. We want him to use those regulations in a way that would make for sensible down-plating regulations.
My view is broadly the view of the major organisations operating on the roads. I am told that the idea is supported by the Freight Transport Association. Hon. Members can judge that for what it is worth, but, irrespective of whether it is the view of major operators, it makes good sense to agree to the amendment. It does not detract from the Secretary of State's powers and it confers on him a power to make regulations in a way which would considerably benefit the industry.

Mr. Fry: I had not intended to intervene until I heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). He touched on one or two important matters. It is a pity that Transport Bill debates on the commercial vehicle industry occur at some unearthly hour. It is unfortunate that that happens when we are due for a period of change. Deep thought will be required in carrying out the Armitage report proposals, if it is decided to carry them out.
I shall listen with great interest to what my hon. and learned Friend will say. The right hon. Member has talked about own-account operators. Let us not fool ourselves. The people who will pay for that extra taxation will be the public, because the costs of running a vehicle which is more highly taxed than it otherwise need be will surely be passed on to the consumer. Thus, the public will not gain from the proposal.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a case for the taxation of those vehicles to be put in a form that the House can consider, but not at this time of night at the tail end of a complicated Bill containing such a mass of complex proposals to be considered. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will reassure me. My initial reaction, however, is to welcome the amendment.
We must move carefully in this matter. My hon. and learned Friend is aware that there is much concern in the country about the heavey vehicle and the most amount of taxation that it pays. There is a danger that he might be going into something that he might later regret and which

the House might wish to consider in greater detail. I hope that he will have an effective answer to the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has made some interesting and telling points. In view of the importance of the matter and its present significance, that answer is required.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that I can rise to that challenge. The danger of being drawn into debates solely by speeches made by the right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) is that one can be drawn into error, as the right hon. Gentleman wrestles with the admitted complexities of this part of the Bill.
I remind the House that the basic underlying purpose of this part of the Bill is, on the whole, popular, welcomed by most parts of the industry and the general public, and recommended by the recent Armitage report. The basic structure and rates of vehicle excise duty on lorries should be adjusted to ensure that the heaviest lorries pay tax that reflects the track costs that they cause to the general public.
Vehicle excise duty on lorries at present is primarily aimed at raising revenue, but it is also aimed at producing a system whereby each class and weight of vehicle covers at least the track cost that it imposes on the general public. The present balance of taxation is unfair, in that many of the smaller vehicles are comparatively overtaxed and many of the heaviest vehicles are undertaxed when we compare the present rate of tax with all the evidence that we have about the damage that they cause to the roads, and hence the cost to the general public.
The Bill is therefore designed to change the structure of the tax and pave the way for the final details and, most important of all, for the rates of tax to be determined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a future Finance Bill. All that the Bill does, in clauses 30 and 31, and schedule 10, which goes with them, is to change the structure of the tax in order to pave the way for the real change that will be made in a subsequent Finance Bill by my right hon. and learned Friend.
It is not quite as complex as appears at first sight. What is proposed in clause 30 and schedule 10 is a three-tier arrangement. Vehicles below 30 cwt will not be changed by a change-over from unladen weight to gross weight. Vehicles above 30 cwt. will be altered in their liability to tax from the present basis—which is related to the unladen weight of the vehicle—to the gross weight of the vehicle plus its load.
Vehicles above 30 cwt. and up to 12 tons will have their tax level determined with reference to their gross weight alone. Above 12 tons, up to the legal maximum, they will have their tax determined with reference to the gross weight, coupled with the number of axles, because in the heaviest vehicles it is the 'weight bearing upon each axle on the road that has the most direct relevance to the damage that they cause, and hence the track costs they cause. The Bill merely paves the way for that.

Mr. Booth: I am trying to follow the Under-Secretary of State. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that the effect of tables 1 and 2 is to make the gross weight a factor in determining the rate of duty on all the vehicles covered by the tables. May I take it that the train weight of the vehicle, applied to the articulated goods vehicles in tables 1 and 2, is intended to be read as the gross weight of the vehicle—or what does train weight mean that is different from gross weight in these connections?

Mr. Clarke: They are both defined in the Bill in clause 31(2). The gross weight is the maximum laden weight of the vehicle and the train weight of an articulated vehicle is
the maximum laden weight for the vehicle together with any trailer which may be drawn by it".
The results are similar in both cases. One has to make sure with the articulated vehicle that one counts both parts of it. One is talking about the total weight of the vehicle, with its maximum permitted load. In the case of vehicles under 12 tons, the rates of tax are determined by that alone. Above 12 tons, the combination of the gross weight in the case of a rigid-axle vehicle, and train weight in the case of an articulated vehicle, and the number of axles, will also be taken into account. It is on that structure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will eventually impose the new form of tax and the new rates of tax that will reflect the track cost caused by each vehicle.
The amendments seek to sweep all that away and to substitute for it a general regulation-making power that presumably will have to come back to the House at some later stage. I would be surprised if the right hon. Gentleman were able to demonstrate that that is the wish of the industry or of anybody else at present. Most people who are concerned with the industry understand the direction in which we are moving and the basis upon which we are setting up the new structure of tax in the Bill. To put it back in the melting pot, sweep away all the provisions of the Bill and just wrap it up in one general regulation-making power would take us back to square one and lead to total uncertainty on all sides about the form of vehicle excise duty for the future. It may be simplification, but it is simplification on so gross a scale, leaving the Bill giving no guidance about the future form and structure of the tax, that it would be counter-productive.
12.15 am
The second amendment seeks to remove the important provisions of subsection (3). Subsection (3)(b) will require us, if necessary, to disregard axles of certain descriptions in the regulations, to deal with the problem of the so-called lazy axle. One problem in taking axle weights into account for the heavier vehicles is that there may be a temptation to put on axles merely to increase the numbers and to have dummy axles and non-load bearing axles merely to reduce tax liability. It would be possible in regulations to prescribe the description of axles, to make sure that false, dummy or lazy axles could be used to get out of tax liability.
More important, subsection (3)(a) enables the Secretary of State to substitute different definitions for those set out elsewhere in the Bill. This will enable regulations to be made, in the light of experience, for variations, or even to take in a down-plating arrangement of the sort that has been urged. This would involve repeal of a part of the Bill that could be used by the Secretary of State, or a future Secretary of State, to introduce an element of down-plating if that were eventually agreed by the Government with the industry. The amendment therefore tends to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I shall not go over all the arguments that I used in Committee about the down-plating. I hope to satisfy those who did not serve on the Committee that the Government are happy to look at the matter. In his Budget my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer

increased vehicle excise duty but otherwise did not move towards the new system of taxation. The Government feel that some time has to elapse before one can make a change, because at the moment the road haulage industry is adversely affected by the terms and conditions of trade.
Hon. Members are awaiting the result of the Armitage report and this House's decision on any proposals that come forward. We are also still carrying out some methodology on assessing the track costs of heavy lorries. It could happen that we shall revise our opinion about the burden between different classes of vehicle. All these matters will be borne in mind, together with the views of the industry, before we reach a final conclusion on down-plating. In Committee I did not seek to conceal that the Government are sceptical about voluntary down-plating, although we understand the motives behind it.
One can see the apparent justice of the proposed change in the case of manufacturers of Weetabix, who have large-volume vehicles whose maximum plated weight will be related to the biggest weight that a vehicle of that size can carry, although in their day-to-day activities they will never get near it. It is arguable that they will be taxed to an extent that exceeds the damage caused to the roads. On the other hand, any system that relates taxation to gross weight will contain an element of unfairness. All our assessments of track costs—hence the structure of tax eventually imposed—will be based on averages, average uses and average loading for the various categories of vehicles.
If we start to concede that those who manufacture and carry in their lorries bulky but light objects have a case, it will be difficult to face the arguments of those who cover less than average mileage with fully loaded vehicles, or those who fully load their vehicles for a few journeys a year but who, for most of the year, run vehicles part-empty or with lighter loads. There is bound to be a certain level of rough and ready justice in the final structure of the tax between individual operators and individual lorries.
I have to repeat that there would be enforcement difficulties. What is suggested is that we go over to a system of voluntary down-plating, where the user will be able to specify the maximum weight at which he proposes to operate and for which he will be liable to tax. Reputable companies would play the game and would not run the risk of prosecution. It would be comparatively easy, however, to evade such a system. There would be a temptation to evade on the part of a user whose vehicles were occasionaly fully loaded but generally operated at a lower weight.
It would be more difficult to detect over loaded vehicles visually on the road. An experienced examiner can tell when a vehicle is over loaded beyond its mechanical capacity. Under a down-plating system, he would have no means of realising while the vehicle was in motion that it was loaded above its tax liability.
Therefore, in Committee I thought it fair to put forward all our reservations, because the position is that we still have to be satisfied that there is a case for down-plating. all that I am saying is that we are prepared to continue to consider it, particularly with the FTA and the other reputable bodies.
All this can be dealt with by the House. The regulation-making powers that I have described under clauses 30 and 31 are all subject to annulment by resolution of either House. It would be possible to pray against them if the


regulations eventually got it wrong, or were unacceptable to any body of opinion in the House. They will not be giving Ministers carte blanche.
Finally, on the really important matter, the rates and details will be the subject of a Finance Bill, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury Ministers will have to answer in detail for the tax liability that, in the long run, they will seek to impose on the industry.

Mr. Booth: The Under-Secretary has demonstrated the complexity of the mechanism that he has chosen to use in the Bill. When I asked him whether the train weight, as referred to in tables 1 and 2 of schedule 10, was the same as the gross weight, I understood him to say that it was not and that the train weight was as defined in clause 31(2)(b). But the train weight as defined there is the gross weight. It is the maximum weight of the whole of the articulated vehicle, with the maximum plated weight of the trailer that it takes—which is nothing more than the gross weight when checked by the same definitions as are used for the other parts of the table.
As the Under-Secretary readily appreciates, those definitions can in any case be changed by regulation under clause 31(3). So the ultimate effect of the mechanism is that the final determination of the factors will be within the Minister's regulation-making powers. Therefore, the structure in the Bill ends up with virtually the same effect as our amendment, but it does it by a much more complex method. The regulations are subject to annulment in the Bill and would be subject to affirmation by the House of Commons in the amendment. That is the only significant difference.
I credit the Minister and his officials at the Department of Transport with a capacity to define in regulations the factors that they would want to be taken into account in determining the excise duty to be paid by operators of heavy vehicles. That is the basis on which the amendment is put forward.
On the argument about the down-plating, I can only say that if it were the problem of the lazy axle, the artificial axle where that had been installed, which led to this wording, that could be dealt with as easily in regulations as it can under the mechanism of the Bill.
The mileage question is a red herring. If one wants to tax by mileage, the tax on derv probably relates more closely to mileage and load than anything else, because a vehicle carrying more load uses more fuel. Therefore, if one wanted to get at that sort of combination, the intelligent way to do it would be by a derv tax.
However, in so far as the purported aim—I do not say "purported" to be insulting—of this part of the Bill is to relate the vehicle excise duty paid by operators of heavy goods vehicles to their gross weights or any combination of weight factors which would be laid down by a Minister in regulations, the amendment would achieve that more effectively than the Bill in its present form and it would give us scope for down-plating. If the Minister is convinced by our argument and if the proposition is accepted by the House, it will make for a more intelligent way of bringing that weight about, which will take into account the particular practices of own-account operators, which I hope will be welcome to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 205, Noes 292.

Division No. 160]
[12.25 am


AYES


Abse, Leo
Grant, John (Islington C)


Allaun, Frank
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Anderson, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Waiter


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Ashton, Joe
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Haynes, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Home Robertson, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Homewood, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym IE.


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lamborn, Harry


Cook, Robin F.
Lamond, James


Cowans, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Crowther, J. S.
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McKelvey, William


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
McNally, Thomas


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dixon, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunn, James A.
Martin, M. (G'gow S'burn)


Dunnett, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foster, Derek
Newens, Stanley


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Ogden, Eric


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Halloran, Michael


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Race, Reg






Radice, Giles
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Richardson, Jo
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Tilley, John


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Robertson, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wainwright, E.(Dearne V)


Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Weetch, Ken


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Sever, John
White, Frank R.


Sheerman, Barry
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitlock, William


Short, Mrs Renée
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Woodall, Alec


Spearing, Nigel
Woolmer, Kenneth


Spriggs, Leslie
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stallard, A. W.



Stoddart, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. James Hamilton and Mr. Joseph Dean.


Straw, Jack



Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley





NOES


Adley, Robert
Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, W. S.


Alison, Michael
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Alton, David
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Ancram, Michael
Clegg, Sir Walter


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric


Aspinwall, Jack
Colvin, Michael


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Cope, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Corrie, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Costain, Sir Albert


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cranborne, Viscount


Banks, Robert
Critchley, Julian


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Beith, A. J.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bell, Sir Ronald
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Dover, Denshore


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Durant, Tony


Best, Keith
Dykes, Hugh


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Biggs-Davison, John
Eggar, Tim


Blackburn, John
Elliott, Sir William


Blaker, Peter
Emery, Peter


Body, Richard
Eyre, Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fairgrieve, Russell


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Farr, John


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Bright, Graham
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Brinton, Tim
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Brittan, Leon
Fookes, Miss Janet


Brotherton, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fox, Marcus


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fry, Peter


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Buck, Antony
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Budgen, Nick
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Burden, Sir Frederick
Glyn, Dr Alan


Butcher, John
Goodhart, Philip


Butler, Hon Adam
Goodlad, Alastair


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Gorst, John


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Gow, Ian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gower, Sir Raymond


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Gray, Hamish





Greenway, Harry
Miscampbell, Norman


Grieve, Percy
Moate, Roger


Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)
Monro, Hector


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Montgomery, Fergus


Grist, Ian
Moore, John


Grylls, Michael
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon A.
Mudd, David


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Murphy, Christopher


Hampson, Dr Keith
Myles, David


Hannam, John
Neale, Gerrard


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony


Hawksley, Warren
Normanton, Tom


Hayhoe, Barney
Nott, Rt Hon John


Heddle, John
Onslow, Cranley


Henderson, Barry
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Osborn, John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)


Hill, James
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Parris, Matthew


Holland, Philip (Carlton)
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hooson, Tom
Pattie, Geoffrey


Hordern, Peter
Pawsey, James


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldfd)
Percival, Sir Ian


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Pollock, Alexander


Howells, Geraint
Porter, Barry


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)


Hurd, Hon Douglas
Proctor, K. Harvey


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Timothy


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Rathbone, Tim


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Renton, Tim


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rhodes James, Robert


Kershaw, Anthony
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kimball, Marcus
Rifkind, Malcolm


King, Rt Hon Tom
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Knox, David
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh


Lang, Ian
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lee, John
Scott, Nicholas


Le Marchant, Spencer
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; w'loo)
Shepherd, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shersby, Michael


Loveridge, John
Silvester, Fred


Luce, Richard
Sims, Roger


Lyell, Nicholas
Skeet, T. H. H.


McCrindle, Robert
Smith, Dudley


Macfarlane, Neil
Speller, Tony


MacGregor, John
Spence, John


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Sproat, Iain


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Stainton, Keith


McQuarrie, Albert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Major, John
Stanley, John


Marland, Paul
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marlow, Tony
Stevens, Martin


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mather, Carol
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stokes, John


Mawby, Ray
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tapsell, Peter


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Mayhew, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thornton, Malcolm






Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)
Wells, Bowen


Trippier, David
Wheeler, John


Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Raymond


van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wickenden, Keith


Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Waddington, David
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Wakeham, John
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, B. (Perth)
Wolfson, Mark


Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wall, Patrick
Younger, Rt Hon George


Waller, Gary



Walters, Dennis
Tellers for the Noes:


Ward, John
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton


Watson, John
and Mr. Donald Thompson.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 32

CHARGES FOR LICENSING OF CABS AND CAB DRIVERS

Mr. Vivian Bendall: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in page 22, leave out lines 13 to 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 40, in page 22, line 19, at end insert
'provided the annual charge does not exceed £2.50'.
No. 41, in page 22, line 26, at end insert
'provided the annual charge does not exceed £2·50'.
No. 42, in page 22, line 34, at end insert
'provided the annual charge does not exceed £60·00'.

Mr. Bendall: The amendment concerns the licensed taxi trade in the Greater London area, and, indeed, in the provinces. Whilst one appreciates, in going back over the last two years, that the Government have been somewhat generous to the licensed trade in its increases in fares during that period, when looking at and analysing the situation over the last month or so it is true to say that the taxi trade, like many other trades, has had to suffer the increased cost of derv. Also, it is often not realised by many people that VAT is chargeable on derv for the taxi trade but that public transport—for example London Transport—which is in competition with the taxi trade does not pay VAT on derv.
The taxi trade in London is an important and integral part of the transport system of this city and has been for many generations. It comprises a group of people who are proud of their heritage and achievements and of the service that they have given to this city over a great number of years.
It is probably also not realised that the licensed taxi trade is in a somewhat different position from that of many others. The owner-driver in the licensed trade relies very much for the purchase of his vehicle on the sale of fleet cabs, which are run by large fleet operators. In this situation there are problems with regard to VAT, which means that the fleets now tend not to pass on their taxis to owner-drivers because they have to compete with London Transport, which has brought in a 25p fixed fare in outer London, which is welcome but is creating competition for the trade.
It must be remembered that public transport is subsidised to a great degree. However, the Government propose in clause 32(1), (2) and (3) to increase charges to the taxi trade. In the metropolitan area of Greater London,

there lids been no cost to the licensed cab driver for his taxi-cab licence. I appreciate that the administrative costs in issuing licences to cabs and cab drivers are high and that costs are rising. However, to introduce a charge of about £35·50 per annum for a taxi cab licence when previously there was no charge will be a considerable burden for those who run fleet cabs in London.
The driver's licence has remained at the low level of 15p since the middle 1800s. It is now to be increased to about £29·50 for three years. Will a driver who is approaching retirement be entitled to a rebate if he has to purchase a licence for three years when he has only a year to work before retirement?
The story is different in the provinces. Last year, the cost of a driver's licence in Birmingham was £5 a year. It is to be increased to £7·50, a 50 per cent. increase. The vehicle licence was £25 last year and it is to be increased to £35. However, in Manchester the driver's licence was £12 last year and it will be £24 this year, an increase of 100 per cent. The owner's vehicle licence for the cab cost £33 last year and it will cost £100 this year.
These are steep increases. It is difficult to understand why the increases are so large in the outer London areas, even taking account of inflation. As I represent a constituency in which there are many taxi drivers, I shall concentrate on London. Over the past few years the taxi trade has seen a gradual decline because of a lack of tourism. It has been welcomed in the House that Members of Parliament can now more easily get a taxi late at night than a few years ago. The taxi trade will have to endure extra increases in the immediate future against the background of a decreasing tourist trade and the increased price of derv.
The black cab, which is used basically by the London trade but in certain other cities as well, is built by Car Body Vehicles, of Coventry, which is at present on a three-day week. Sales have been dropping. The components are supplied by British Leyland. The number of employees has dropped from about 1,400 to 400. In the first six months of trading this year the company's loss has been about £600,000.
12.45 am
The firm's second trading phase is always considered to be worse than the first. Therefore, it is important to preserve this firm of body builders so that it can supply the London taxi trade with the type of vehicle which it wants and prefers. Indeed, there are rumours that both Mitsubishi and Mercedes are working on a cab which would be suitable for London and the provinces. I would be sad if another British industry went out of existence as a result of foreign investment and trade.
I ask the Government to look seriously at the situation as it affects the licensed taxi trade. I ask them to consider limits on the costs of licensing, in respect of both the driver and vehicle. They should consider spreading this large amount over two or three years instead of introducing it all at once. I ask my hon. and learned Friend seriously to consider the points that I have made, because the London taxi trade provides an important and integral part of the transport system of this great city.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Baling, Southall): Among my parliamentary tasks I have the duty of liaising with the Transport and General Workers Union and the taxi-cab trade. On these matters there are no differences between worker-drivers and those who work for proprietors.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) skilfully set out the position. Therefore, I shall not repeat the arguments. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was a member of the Committee. The difficulties of the licensed taxi-cab trade, as well as its apprehensions, were debated at some length during those proceedings, but I suspect that other hon. Members do not avidly read the Committee proceedings on such matters, especially when they involve a wide-ranging Bill such as this.
Some of us are dismayed that the Secretary of State has introduced these proposals at a time when wide consultations are taking place. However, as they are in the Bill we must give them due consideration. I entirely share the hon. Gentleman's apprehension that the overhead costs, both to the workers and the proprietors, may be too steep, especially at a time when there is a decline in earning possibilities because of the contraction in the tourist trade.
I want to see this tradition preserved. We should ensure that the Bill does not impair the opportunities of the taxi trade. In the previous Transport Act, the Government gave some aid to the licensed cab trade, whose fares are strictly controlled compared with the car hire trade.
We felt a sense of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cowan) for his amendment earlier, and to the Minister of State when he accepted that one way to aid the taxi drivers was to prevent the minicab or car hire trade from running around with illuminated roof signs, and so on, which might suggest that they were plying for hire.
My sentiments would have been best expressed by the final amendment on the Order Paper, which may be eclipsed by the guillotine under which we have been placed by this very wide Bill, which includes the taxi-cab trade. I hope that we shall hear something from the Minister that is sympathetic and that shows the Department's sympathy. I hope that there will be reference to the charges. Inevitably, those must affect the fares in the declining market.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The taxi trade as a whole will recognise that it has had a fairly reasonable deal from the Government so far. My right hon. Friend made adjustments to its price levels the last time the fares were increased in London—adjustments that were acceptable and that redressed a long-standing grievance. As the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) fairly conceded, last year's Transport Bill, now the Transport Act 1980, contained measures for which the taxi trade had been pressing for some time. We included those measures. It is the intention of the Government to deal sympathetically with the taxi trade in its present difficult trading conditions.
I met a deputation led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Bendall) two days ago, when taxi drivers made representations about the part of the Bill, that affects them. They covered a wide area of their present grievances. Most are best dealt with in another context. Many of them will be faced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the consultation document that he proposes to issue shortly. It will deal with the whole matter of the law governing the taxi trade and the hire car trade.

It will put forward proposals for discussion, which might lead to some modernisation of the regulations and the terms and conditions of the trade.
That is the right way to consider the problems of taxi drivers, and not the comparatively narrow issue of the licence fees, which are all that is covered by this part of the Bill. There is no intention in the Bill or in Government policy to discriminate against the taxi trade in any way. We are merely bringing the practice of charging for licences for taxis in line with the Government policy of charging for all other sorts of licences. Where Parliament prescribes a licensing system and where licences are issued either by central Government or by local authorities, it is the policy that the costs of that licensing system shall be recovered in appropriate fees from those who receive the licences. There is no intention of making a profit, and there is no element of tax. However, it is right that the trade and those who use taxis, and not the general taxpayer—including many people who make no use of the taxi system—should pay for the cost of licensing.
It has not been possible to follow that policy for taxis so far because of outdated statutory restrictions on the maximum fees. The fees for London have not been changed since 1869. The fees for provincial cities, where the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act has not been adopted, have not been changed since 1847. They are farcically low.
In London, no fee is being charged for the vehicle at the moment because of doubts about whether the legislation applies to anything other than horse-drawn cabs. For drivers, the levels have been fixed at 3s since the mid-1930s. The level is still 15p. The result is that at the moment the public carriage office of the Metropolitan Police is costing the general taxpayer about £¾ million each year. The present licence fees are recovering the princely sum of £1,500. With respect, that cannot be allowed to continue. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has confirmed that it will be open to the taxi drivers to recover it in fares from their passengers, because the new fees will be reflected in the new fare levels when they are next increased.
However, the effect on fares will, I dare to suggest, be trivial. The extra cost involved is about ½ per cent. The generality of taxi passengers will pay for the taxi licensing system and they will benefit from the licensing and control of taxis. It will no longer be the general taxpayer who pays.
I told my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North the other day of the likely fares in London, and he used my figures in his speech this evening. He will have observed that they are much lower than local authority fees charged outside London. The public carriage office of the Metropolitan Police is comparatively small, and carries out a serious task for the whole city. The Home Secretary will respond to respresentations about its cost.
We are not imposing a new and onerous burden on the taxi trade; we are merely correcting a long-standing anomaly. I acknowledge that there are bigger problems. I accept the strength of feeling that lies behind my hon. Friend's speech and the views of this constituents, whom he brought to see me two days ago. It arises from other matters, such as their taxation liability, the importance of the law on hire cars and the state of the law on the licensed taxi trade, which are all matters that can be properly dealt with when the consultation document is produced and


when the general debate on the future of the trade is initiated by the Home Secretary. Our fees may be an irritant, but they are no more than that.
I commend the provisions of the Bill to the House, and I ask my hon. Friend to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. It is a common-sense and comparatively minor change.

Mr. Booth: The guillotine means that the House cannot debate the amendment that my hon. Friends and I have tabled.
The London taxi trade is subject to stringent controls, requiring major annual overhauls for relicensing and quarterly inspections of individual cabs, in addition to random tests. Maintaining the standards set by the public carriage office involves the trade in considerable cost. If the office is freed from the present financial restraints, which would be the effect of the clause, the trade may face higher and most costly standards. The Government say that the trade can pass on the cost in higher fares, but the trade believes that if fares were substantially increased trade would fall off.
The amendments are not the real solution. We need a mechanism to enable the Secretary of State to involve the trade in considering how to achieve higher standards before fees are increased. Taxi drivers, operators and owners cannot count for nothing in tightly controlled and regulated business. The standard of taxi operation required by law in London is probably higher than that in any other city in the world. The regulations are to protect the travelling public. If fees are to be increased, which will in turn increase fares and result in operating difficulties, the trade should be consulted. The trade is at one in wanting to be consulted before the Secretary of State makes decisions about driver and vehicle fees that affect the livelihood of drivers, owners and operators.
I therefore feel that the narrow line of approach of the amendments will not provide a real solution to that problem. Had the Secretary of State, with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, been prepared to reach the long-awaited decision on recommendations of the Maxwell Stamp report, we might have had, either in this Bill or in a Bill produced by the Home Secretary, a series of proposals that would have enabled the House to do something other than free a Transport Minister——

It being One o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [9 March] and the Resolution this day, to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at One o'clock.

Schedule 11

REPEALS

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 79, line 42, column 3 at beginning insert 'section 17.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Amendment made: No. 37—New Schedule—

ROAD HUMPS

PART I

PROVISION FOR ENGLAND AND WALES

(1). In section 62(3) of the Highways act (descriptions of works for which specific powers are given and in relation to which the general power in that section does not apply), the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (f)—

"(ff) the construction, maintenance and removal. of road humps;".

(2) The following provisions are inserted after section 90 of the Highways Act 1980—

Construction of road humps by highway authority. "Road humps

90A.—(1) A highway authority may construct road humps in a highway maintainable at the public expense for which they are the highway authority if—

(a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or
(b) the road humps are specially authorised by the Secretary of State,
and may remove any road humps so constructed by them.

(2) The consent of the Greater London Council is required for the construction of road humps under this section by a London borough council or the Common Council.

Additional powers of the Secretary of State

90B.—(1) The Secretary of State may construct road humps in a highway maintainable at the public expense for which he is not the highway authority if—

(a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or
(b) the road humps are specially authorised by him,
and may maintain and remove any road humps so constructed by him.

(2) The consent of the local highway authority for the highway concerned is required for the construction of road humps under this section and also, in the case of a highway in Greater London for which the Greater London Council are not the highway authority, the consent of that Council.

(3) The Secretary of State and the local highway authority may enter into an agreement for the carrying out by the local highway authority of any works which the Secretary of State has power to carry out under this section.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, the consent of the Secretary of State is required before the local authority or any other person having power to maintain the highway may remove or otherwise interfere with a road hump constructed under this section.

(5) If the Secretary of State so directs with the consent of the local highway authority, the local highway authority shall have the same powers in relation to a road hump constructed under this section as they have in relation to a road hump constructed by them under section 90A above.

(6) Where a road hump has been constructed under this section, the local highway authority and any other person having power to maintain the highway may reimburse the Secretary of State the whole or part of his expenses in relation to the road hump.

Consultation and local inquiries

90C.—(1) Where the Secretary of State or a local highway authority propose to construct a road hump under section 90A or 90B above, he or they shall consult with—

(a) the chief officer of police for the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and
(b) such other persons as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall also—

(a) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and
(b) place at appropriate points on that highway, 
a notice of the proposal stating the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump and the address to which and the period within which any objections to the proposal may be sent.

(3) The period stated in a notice under subsection (2) above shall not be less than 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice is first published in accordance with paragraph (a) of that subsection.

(4) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall consider any objections sent to him or them in accordance with a notice under subsection (2) above and may, if he or they think fit, cause a local inquiry to be held.

(5) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (povisions as to inquiries) have effect in relation to an inquiry held under subsection (4) above as they have effect in relation to an inquiry held under that section, but with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Before making regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

Regulations concerning construction and maintenance of road humps

90D.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision in relation to the construction and maintenance of road humps as appears to him to be necessary or expedient in the interests of safety and the free movement of traffic, and may in particular—

(a) provide that road humps shall be constructed only in highways of such descriptions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;
(b) impose requirements as to—

(i) the nature, dimensions, location and spacing of road humps;
(ii) the placing of signs of such type or character as may be so prescribed;
(iii) the carrying out and maintenance of other ancillary or consequential works.

(2) Regulations under this section may make different provision for different cases, as for example for road humps and highways of different descriptions.

(3) Before making any regulations under this section the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

(4) Regulations under this section do not apply where a road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State, but conditions attached by him to the authorisation may, in particular, relate to any of the matters with respect to which regulations may be made under this section.

Status of road humps.

90E.—(1) Where a road hump conforms to regulations under section 90D above and, in the case of a road hump in a highway maintainable at the public expense, the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied, the road hump shall not be treated as constituting an obstruction to the highway but as part of the highway, so that in particular—

(a) the obligation of any person to maintain the highway; and
(b) the obligation of any person having power to break open the highway to make good any damage or otherwise reinstate the highway, 
extend to maintaining or, as the case may be, making good any damage to or otherwise reinstating the road hump.

(2) The further conditions applicable in the case of a road hump in a highway maintainable at the public expense are—

(a) that the highway is for the time being subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less or the road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State; and
(b) that the road hump was constructed under section 90A or 90B above or was constructed at a time when the highway was not maintainable at the public expense.

(3) In relation to a road hump specially authorised by the Secretary of State the reference in subsection (1) above to conformity with regulations shall be construed as a reference to conformity with the conditions attached to the authorisation.

(4) In so far as it does not apply apart from this subsection, Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 (code regulating relations between persons carrying out alterations to roads and statutory undertakers having apparatus in those roads) applies in relation to the construction, maintenance and removal of a road hump as if the works were executed for road purposes and were mentioned in section 21(1)(a) of that Act and as if the person executing them were the promoting authority within the meaning of that Part.

Meaning of "road hump" and interpretation of sections 90A to 90E

90F.—(1) In this Act "road hump" means an artificial hump in or on the surface of the highway which is designed to control the speed of vehicles, and references to a road hump include references to any other works (including signs or lighting) required in connection with such a hump.

(2) In sections 90A to 90E above—
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act
"statutory" means having effect by virtue of an enactment.

3.In section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980 (interpretation) the following is inserted at the appropriate place—
'road hump' has the meaning provided by section 90F(1);".

PART II

PROVISION FOR SCOTLAND

Construction of road humps by highway authority

4. A highway authority may construct road humps in a highway for which they are the highway authority if—

(a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or
(b) the road humps are especially authorised by the Secretary of State,
and may remove any road humps so constructed by them.

Additional powers of the Secretary of State

5.—(1) The Secretary of State may, with the consent of the local highway authority for the highway concerned, construct road humps in a highway for which he is not the highway authority if—

(a) the highway is subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or
(b) the road humps are specially authorised by him,
and may maintain and remove any road humps so constructed by him.

(2) The Secretary of State and the local highway authority may enter into an agreement for the carrying out by the local highway authority of any works which the Secretary of State has power to carry out under this paragraph.

(3) Subject to sub-paragraph (4), the consent of the Secretary of State is required before the local highway authority may remove or otherwise interfere with a road hump constructed under this paragraph.

(4) If the Secretary of State so directs with the consent of the local highway authority, the local highway authority shall have the same powers in relation to a road hump constructed under this paragraph as they have in relation to a road hump constructed by them under paragraph 4.

(5) Where a road hump has been constructed under this paragraph, the local highway authority may reimburse the Secretary of State the whole or part of his expenses in relation to the road hump.

Consultation and local inquiries

6.—(1) Where the Secretary of State or a local highway authority propose to construct a road hump under paragraph 4 or 5, he or they shall consult with—

(a) the chief officer of police for the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and
(b) such other persons or bodies as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall also—

(a) publish in one or more newspapers circulating in the area in which the highway concerned is situated; and
(b) place at appropriate points on that highway,
a notice of the proposal stating the nature, dimensions and location of the proposed road hump and the address to which and the period within which any objections to the proposal may be sent.

(3) The period stated in a notice under sub-paragraph (2) shall be not less than 21 days beginning with the date on which the notice is first published in accordance with paragraph (a) of that sub-paragraph.

(4) The Secretary of State or local highway authority shall consider any objection sent to him or them in accordance with a notice under sub-paragraph (2) and may, if he or they think fit, cause a local inquiry to be held.

(5) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (provisions as to inquiries)


have effect in relation to an inquiry held under sub-paragraph (4) as they have effect in relation to an inquiry held under that section, but with such modifications as may be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(6) Before making regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State shall consult such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

Regulations concerning construction and maintenance of road humps

(7).—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision in relation to the construction and maintenance of road humps as appears to him to be necessary or expedient in the interests of safety and the free movement of traffic, and may in particular—

(a) provide that road humps shall be constructed only on highways of such descriptions and in such circumstances as may be prescribed by the regulations;
(b) impose requirements as to—

(i) the nature, dimensions, location and spacing of road humps;
(ii) the placing of signs of such type or character as may be so prescribed;
(iii) the carrying out and maintenance of other ancillary or consequential works.

(2) Regulations under this paragraph may make different provision for different cases, as for example for road humps and highways of different descriptions.

(3) Before making any regulations under this paragraph the Secretary of State shall consult with such representative organisations as he thinks fit.

(4) Regulations under this paragraph do not apply where a road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State, but conditions attached by him to the authorisation may, in particular, relate to any of the matters with respect to which regulations may be made under this paragraph.

(3) Status of road humps

8.—(1) Where a road hump constructed under paragraph 4 or 5 conforms to regulations under paragraph 7 and the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied, the road hump shall not be treated as constituting an obstruction to the highway but as part of the highway, so that in particular—

(a) the obligation of the highway authority to maintain the highway; and
(b) the obligation of any person having power to break open the highway to make good any damage or otherwise reinstate the highway; 
extend to maintaining or, as the case may be, to making good any damage to or otherwise reinstating the road hump.

(2) The further condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is that either—

(a) the highway in question is for the time being subject to a statutory speed limit for motor vehicles of 30 miles per hour or less; or
(b) the road hump is specially authorised by the Secretary of State.

(3) In relation to a road hump specially authorised by the Secretary of State the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to conformity with regulations shall be construed as a reference to conformity with the conditions attached to the authorisation.

(4) In so far as it does not apply apart from this subparagraph, Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 (code regulating relations between persons carrying out alterations to roads and statutory undertakers having apparatus in those roads) applies in relation to the construction, maintenance and removal of a road hump as if the works were executed for road purposes and were mentioned in section 21(1)(a) of that Act and as if the person executing them were the promoting authority within the meaning of that Part.

Interpretation and construction

9.—(1) In this Part—
"motor vehicle" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967;
"road hump" means an artificial hump in or on the surface of the highway which is designed to control the speed of vehicles, and references to a road hump include references to any other works (including signs or lighting) required in connection with such a hump;
"statutory" means having effect by virtue of an enactment.

(2) This Part shall be construed as one with the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970.

Title

Amendment made: No. 38, in line 10, after 'safety', insert
'to make provision with respect to road humps;'.—[Mr. Fowler.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 207.

Division No. 161]
[1.01 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Durant, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Dykes, Hugh


Alexander, Richard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Alison, Michael
Eggar, Tim


Alton, David
Elliott, Sir William


Ancram, Michael
Emery, Peter


Arnold, Tom
Eyre, Reginald


Aspinwall, Jack
Fairgrieve, Russell


Atkins, Robert(Preston N)
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)
Farr, John


Baker, Kenneth (St. M'bone)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Banks, Robert
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bell, Sir Ronald
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Benyon, W. (Buckingham)
Fox, Marcus


Best, Keith
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fry, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Blackburn, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Blaker, Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Body, Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodhart, Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)
Gorst, John


Bowden, Andrew
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Sir Bernard
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Bright, Graham
Gray, Hamish


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brittan, Leon
Grieve, Percy


Brotherton, Michael
Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp; Sc'n)
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Grist, Ian


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Grylls, Michael


Bryan, Sir Paul
Gummer, John Selwyn


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hamilton, Hon A.


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith


Burden, Sir Frederick
Hannam, John


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Hon Adam
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Hawkins, Paul


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n )
Hayhoe, Barney


Chalker, Mrs. Lynda
Heddle, John


Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul
Henderson, Barry


Chapman, Sydney
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)
Hill, James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Holland, Philip (Carlton)


Cockeram, Eric
Hooson, Tom


Colvin, Michael
Hordern, Peter


Cope, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)


Corrie, John
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)


Costain, Sir Albert
Howells, Geraint


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Dean, Paul (North Somerset)
Hurd, Hon Douglas


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Dorrell, Stephen
Jessel, Toby


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Dover, Denshore
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Kaberry, Sir Donald






Kershaw, Anthony
Renton, Tim


Kimball, Marcus
Rhodes James, Robert


King, Rt Hon Tom
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rifkind, Malcolm


Knox, David
Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)


Lamont, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Lang, Ian
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lawrence, Ivan
Rossi, Hugh


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Scott, Nicholas


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant &amp; W'loo)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Loveridge, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard


Lyell, Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


McCrindle, Robert
Silvester, Fred


Macfarlane, Neil
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


MacKay, John (Argyll)
Smith, Dudley


Macmillan, Rt Hon M.
Speller, Tony


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Spence, John


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


McQuarrie, Albert
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Major, John
Sproat, Iain


Marland, Paul
Stainton, Keith


Marlow, Tony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marten, Neil (Banbury)
Stanley, John


Mates, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Martin


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Mawby, Ray
Stewart, A.(E Renfrewshire)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stokes, John


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stradling Thomas, J.


Mayhew, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter


Mellor, David
Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Tebbit, Norman


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mills, Peter (West Devon)
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Thompson, Donald


Moate, Roger
Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)


Monro, Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Fergus
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moore, John
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Trippier, David


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Trotter, Neville


Mudd, David
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Murphy, Christopher
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


Myles, David
Viggers, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Waddington, David


Nelson, Anthony
Wakeham, John


Neubert, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P.(W'cester)


Newton, Tony
Walker, B. (Perth)


Normanton, Tom
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Nott, Rt Hon John
Wall, Patrick


Onslow, Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Walters, Dennis


Osborn, John
Ward, John


Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Watson, John


Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Parkinson, Cecil
Wells, Bowen


Parris, Matthew
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford)
Whitney, Raymond


Pattie, Geoffrey
Wickenden, Keith


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Percival, Sir Ian
Wilkinson, John


Pollock, Alexander
Williams, D.(Montgomery)


Porter, Barry
Winterton, Nicholas


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Proctor, K. Harvey
Younger, Rt Hon George


Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Raison, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and Mr. Anthony Berry.


Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)






NOES


Abse, Leo
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Allaun, Frank
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Anderson, Donald
Hardy, Peter


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Ashton, Joe
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Atkinson, H.(H'gey,)
Haynes, Frank


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)
Heffer, Eric S.


Bidwell, Sydney
Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Home Robertson, John


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Homewood, William


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hooley, Frank


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Huckfield, Les


Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)
Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
Hughes, Mark (Durham)


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Campbell, Ian
Janner, Hon Greville


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Canavan, Dennis
John, Brynmor


Cant, R. B.
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carmichael, Neil
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jones, Barry (East Flint)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cohen, Stanley
Kerr, Russell


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Lamborn, Harry


Cook, Robin F.
Lamond, James


Cowans, Harry
Leighton, Ronald


Cox, T. (W'dsw'th, Toot'g)
Lestor, Miss Joan


Craigen, J. M.
Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)


Crowther, J. S.
Litherland, Robert


Cryer, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lyon, Alexander (York)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McCartney, Hugh


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Davidson, Arthur
McElhone, Frank


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McKelvey, William


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Deakins, Eric
McNally, Thomas


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin


Dewar, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Dixon, Donald
McWilliam, John


Dobson, Frank
Magee, Bryan


Dormand, Jack
Marks, Kenneth


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Marshall, D(G'gow S'ton)


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dunn, James A.
Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)


Dunnett, Jack
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Maxton, John


Eadie, Alex
Meacher, Michael


Eastham, Ken
Mikardo, Ian


Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


English, Michael
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Ennals, Rt Hon David
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)


Evans, John (Newton)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morton, George


Forrester, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Foster, Derek
Newens, Stanley


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)
Ogden, Eric


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
O'Halloran, Michael


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Palmer, Arthur


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Parry, Robert


Ginsburg, David
Pendry, Tom


Golding, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Gourlay, Harry
Prescott, John


Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Race, Reg


Grant, John (Islington C)
Radice, Giles






Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Richardson, Jo
Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Tilley, John


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Torney, Tom


Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Robertson, George
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


Rooker, J. W.
Watkins, David


Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)
Weetch, Ken


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Michael


Sever, John
White, Frank R.


Sheerman, Barry
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Whitlock, William


Short, Mrs Renée
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)


Snape, Peter
Wilson, William (C'try SE)


Soley, Clive
Winnick, David


Spearing, Nigel
Woodall, Alec


Spriggs, Leslie
Woolmer, Kenneth


Stallard, A. W.
Young, David (Bolton E)


Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)



Stoddart, David
Tellers for the Noes:


Stott, Roger
Mr. Joseph Dean and Mr. James Tinn.


Straw, Jack



Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.

Ordered,
That the Standing Order of 4 July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Committee of Public Accounts be amended, by leaving out Mr. James Lamond and inserting Mr. Barry Sheerman.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

Orders of the Day — Dr. Andrew Dossetor (Pension Entitlement)

Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to raise on the Adjournment the case of my constituent, Dr. Andrew Dossetor. He is a medical doctor who practises in Newmarket. He made application for his war service at the concentration camp of Belsen to be reckoned for his pension entitlement.
In my view Dr. Dossetor's application has been quite wrongly rejected. Although I am grateful to the Minister for the care that he has shown in looking into the case and for his attendance in the House at this late hour, I expect a great deal more sensitivity from him than his Department has shown in its correspondence with me.
The background is brief but terrible. It began in 1945 as the allied armies that were advancing into Germany began to uncover the horrors of the Third Reich's extermination centres. One such centre was Belsen. News of its bestialities reached the British 21st Army Group a week or so before the first British troops arrived there. In preparation for dealing with large numbers of weak and emaciated victims, an urgent call went out for medical volunteers.
In London, the War Office sent an SOS to the London medical schools, and one of the students who responded was Andrew Dossetor, then aged 21 and a final-year student at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Together with eight other Barts men, Andrew Dossetor placed himself under the command of an Army major, who took them to an Army depot and kitted them out in battledress. They were transported by military aircraft to an airstrip not far behind the British Army's front line in North Germany.
Within four days of Belsen being liberated Andrew Dossetor was installed in the captured mess of a German armoured unit. Under the command of an RAMC brigadier, Glen Hughes, now deceased, he was put in charge of a hut containing 200 of the concentration camp's women victims. They did not, of course, look like women. Most weighed well under six stone. Many in their twenties had hair that had turned completely white. Some lay in their own excrement, too weak to move or to speak. Scores were dying of starvation.
Not surprisingly, lice abounded. Their bites quickly infected the weakened inmates of Belson. Typhus spread like wild fire. Andrew Dossetor—today a middle-aged physician, but in those days an enthusiastic student—threw himself into the task of ministering to the sick. He washed and fed those emaciated women in Belsen. He cleaned them up as best he could. He nursed those who had any chance of living—there were not many—and he was handicapped, ironically, by the generosity of the British troops, who handed out their own bully beef, only to find that the shrivelled stomachs and weakened intestines of many of the Belsen inmates simply could not digest so rich a diet.
On several occasions Andrew Dossetor lifted the bodies of his typhus-ridden patients on to the straw palliases the British soldiers had provided. He assumed that the immunisation that he had been given in London would


protect him but, unfortunately, in that he was wrong. Within two weeks of starting that work in Belsen Andrew Dossetor began coughing up blood. Postules appeared on his limbs and his legs were covered with lice bites. He was eventually flown back to London, suffering from a bad case of typhus. Lack of oxygen on the flight led to symptoms of myocarditis. Despite the best attention that could be given in a fever hospital, Dossetor's convalescence was interrupted by heart failure—unquestionably the result of the typhus that he contracted in Belsen.
It was two years before Barts hospital accepted Andrew Dossetor as being sufficiently recovered to be readmitted to full-time medical studies. He therefore graduated two years later—I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to note that—than he would have done if he had not volunteered for service with the Army at Belsen. Happily, Dr. Dossetor ever since has led an active life.
After finishing medical school he served for two years in the Royal Air Force. The Department, rather curiously in my view, regards that as evidence against Dr. Dossetor, arguing that his being conscripted into the RAF in 1948 is proof that he could not have served in the Armed Forces during the war. But the truth is exactly the opposite. Dr. Dossetor certainly could have argued that he should not have been called up again, and almost certainly he would have been able to make that argument stick. Instead, he chose not to do so. Why? It was because, although the Department may find it hard to believe in these days when patriotism is at a low ebb in our country, he actually wanted to serve his country. As he put it himself when I cross-examined him at the weekend:
I made no attempt to get out of being called up again on account of my previous service, because this would have required a 'pity me' attitude. I was quite happy to be called up again, and indeed I extended my service by six months. I was keen to serve my country if required".
It is because Andrew Dossetor has lived his life in this fashion that he is now a highly respected general practitioner in Newmarket. He is a calm, courteous and intensely patriotic man who has never allowed the scars, physical or emotional, of his experiences in Belsen to make him resentful or bitter, even against the Germans. He does, however, believe—and in this I agree with him—that as he approaches retirement he ought to be entitled, as all who served in the forces during the Second World War have been expressly entitled by this House, to count his war service in Belsen towards his superannuation.
Why does this matter? On the material side, admitting Dr. Dossetor's claim would mean that he could retire, if he wished, a year earlier and on a pension approximately £300 a year higher than he will get if the Minister denies his claim. Indeed, it is only if the Minister accepts my contention that Dr. Dossetor will be able to take his superannuation at the same time as his colleagues who entered medical school at the same time as he did.
I emphasise this because unless Dr. Dossetor's claim is accepted those of his contemporaries who did not volunteer to serve in Belsen, those who never put on a World War II uniform, will be able to retire one year earlier and on a higher pension than Dr. Dossetor. Compared with them, he will be penalised because he

went to Belsen, which he did not need to do, because he volunteered, and because he put on a uniform instead of staying behind as a student.
I have personally been exposed, as no doubt my hon. Friend the Minister has to a number of military emergencies—in Budapest, in the Congo and in the Middle East—and I can tell him that when life and death choices are involved there is no time and no place for the subtleties of the Superannuation Act 1946, as subsequently modified by the National Health Service (Superannuation) (War Service, etc.) Regulations 1977. What matters in those circumstances is to move, and move fast and be damned to the regulations, because typhus waits for no man, and death on the scale that I later saw in Dachau, and which Andrew Dossetor struggled with personally in Belsen, does not hang about waiting for officials to untangle their red tape.
The material facts are these. First, Dr. Dossetor was asked to volunteer for Belsen by way of an urgent message from the Army, transmitted to him via the War Office. Secondly, when he responded, he was placed under Army discipline, under the command of an Army major. Thirdly, he was kitted out by the Army, fed and transported by the Army, flown to Belsen in an Army aircraft and housed in an Army mess. Fourthly, there he was given orders by an Army brigadier, and he was sent into that death camp under Army control and Army discipline.
Fifthly, the fighting was still going on. The nearby woods were full of SS snipers. If Dr. Dossetor had been killed by one of those snipers, he would have been gazetted as killed in action while on military service. He was not in the situation of an ARP warden, an ambulance man or a Red Cross man killed in the London blitz. They, I freely concede, were civilians on war work. They were not in the forces as such and, therefore, cannot benefit from the concessions that have been made available to those who served in the Armed Forces.
But Dr. Dossetor was in the front line. He was there under fire. He was there when British troops tied the grisly commander of Belsen, Kramer, to a stake on the perimeter fence. He was there when the bulldozers were pushing into those ghastly pits tens of thousands of corpses, some of them the women who had died under his own eyes.
He became ill and came close himself to dying of typhus, wholly and exclusively because he performed this active service with the British Army.
By any reasonable measure of fact and common sense, Andrew Dossetor was on active service. In recognition, he was awarded a military decoration, the France and Germany medal. He got this from the War Office under the signature of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff. When he got that medal, he did not suppose, and nor would anyone else have supposed, that he was awarded it in recognition of his work as a civilian. He got it for his work with the Army.
For these reasons, and because I also believe that the Minister will want to temper reason with common sense, I conclude my remarks with two precise requests. The first is that the Minister should allow Dr. Dossetor to buy back his one-year entitlement to any NHS superannuation in recognition of his work for and with the British Army at Belsen and in recognition of the illness he contracted wholly and exclusively as a result of his active service with the Army.
Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend, if he cannot find it in the regulations—I am sure that he will find it in his heart—to find some other way of discharging the debt that all owe to men like Andrew Dossetor. His case is unique. Meeting it would create no precedents. The cost is infinitesimal but the right on his side is clearcut.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on putting the case of Dr. Andrew Dossetor so persuasively, movingly and effectively. I feel enormous sympathy and admiration for this doctor, whose humanitarian act clearly resulted in personal illness and risk to life and delayed his entry into his chosen profession. It is a story of selfless patriotism. I feel guilty that the Government have been unable to respond to Dr. Dossetor in the way that he responded to the Government in 1945.
It may help if, at the outset, I explain the background to the war service provisions. Shortly after the war, arrangements were made by the principal Civil Service pension scheme to allow credit for war service to civil servants whose careers had been interrupted temporarily by war service and also, by extension, to those whose entry into a career in the Civil Service had similarly been delayed.
Post-war entrants to the Civil Service were able to reckon their war service for pension purposes under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1946. At that time, a civil servant had to be established before he became eligible for a pension, but unestablished service which immediately preceded establishment counted at half-rate for pension purposes.
Virtually no appointments to established posts were made during the war, but many of the people who were taken on in an unestablished capacity were expected to stay on after the war and gain establishment in the post-war reconstruction competitions. Such people would have had an unfair advantage from a pension point of view as compared with those who were prevented by the war from entering the Civil Service at all. The object of the 1946 Act was to seek to put the post-war entrant on an equal footing with the wartime entrant.
Under section 1 of the Superannuation Act 1946, war service was specified as whole-time service in the Armed Forces of the Crown, in the Merchant Navy or the mercantile marine, or in any of the women's services specified in the first schedule to the Act. I shall certainly see, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, whether there is any way that Dr. Dossetor's work during the war could be considered to fall within the terms of that section of the Act.
At the time, much thought was given to the possibility of covering forms of national service other than service in the Armed Forces and suchlike, particular consideration being given to whole-time civil defence workers, who came within the scope of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act 1944. However, during the war practically everyone of military age was engaged in some work of national importance and it was considered that it was not possible to extend the scope of the concession without bringing in everbody who had volunteered or been directed to work of national importance.
In fairness, I do not think that my hon. Friend seeks such an extension, which would be much broader than the present one. The scope of the concession was, therefore, made the same as that which had been adopted for the operation of the system of reserving a proportion of vacancies for established posts in the Civil Service for ex-Service men and women during the reconstruction period, which was in turn derived from the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act 1944. Parliament agreed that the concession should be limited in this way to ex-Service men proper, who, it was generally accepted, had a very special claim for the consideration of the community. I think that the case that my hon. Friend has made has been that Dr. Dossetor should qualify as an ex-Service man proper, and I do not think that he has been arguing for a much broader interpretation or a relaxation of the terms of the Act.
In 1973 very strong pressures were exerted in Parliament on behalf of the teachers, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who was then Secretary of St ate for Education and Science, obtained Cabinet agreement to extension of the Civil Service arrangements to teachers. She did, however, stress in her speech in Parliament that there were bound to be great practical difficulties and problems of definition in reopening at that late stage the question of reckonable service of teachers who trained and joined the profession immediately after the war and that inevitably, at that distance of time, we would have to accept that there would be an element of rough justice.
Following the concession to the teachers it was agreed that a similar concession could no longer reasonably be withheld from the other public service staff groups. But it was also decided, both on grounds of principle and because of the administrative and financial implications, that extension of the concession within the public service beyond the Civil Service should not be accompanied by a broadening of the conditions of the concession already written into the 1946 Act; in particular, the concession should not be extended to cover war service in services other than the Armed Forces of the Crown. So the provisions introduced in 1977 into the National Health Service scheme by regulations having effect from 1975 followed the same basic principles as those which had been adopted many years before.
At the earlier consultative stage of those regulations, the NHS staff representatives sought to extend the scope of the war service definition in order to include persons who had been engaged in wartime civilian organisations. It was, however, explained to them that the concessions could not go beyond that already determined, and this they accepted with reluctance but with understanding.
As regards the particular case which my hon. Friend has raised, Dr. Dossetor was a final-year medical student in St. Bartholomew's hospital in 1945 when, as my hon. Friend said, the call came for volunteers to go and help the sick and needy in Belsen concentration camp. Dr. Dossetor was one of a group of volunteer students who, commendably, answered this call. They were attached to the Red Cross and flown out to Belsen, where they worked under the direction of the military. Dr. Dossetor worked in that camp for a period of three weeks in April to May 1945—there is no dispute about the facts of his work there—before unfortunately being taken seriously ill with typhus and being admitted to hospital.
Dr. Dossetor performed meritorious service in assisting the Belsen victims, for which he subsequently received the France and Germany Star. I pay tribute to his work.


Military campaign medals were awarded to members of relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, whose service took place in the theatres of war, but such work does not reckon as war service for the purposes of the superannuation concession.
I have said that I have great sympathy for this doctor, but I have also explained, and the House is well aware, that during the war almost every adult was engaged in work of national importance. I mentioned earlier that when the war service concession was introduced into the Civil Service pension scheme this question was given considerable thought before the decision was taken on who should be covered. Apart from the Armed Forces, many were doing difficult jobs, such as the Bevin boys and munition workers, and some worked in extremely hazardous occupations. Among these were the London Fire Brigade and firemen in other large cities, as well as members of voluntary organisations such as the Red Cross, the Student Relief Organisation and the Emergency Medical Service. No doubt hon. Members can think of others.
But in introducing this concession for public service employees—it is not available to those in the private sector—it was accepted that a line had to be drawn, and it was decided that it should be restricted to ex-Service men and women who had this very special claim for the consideration of the community.
Unfortunately, it appears that at present Dr. Dossetor's commendable work in Belsen does not qualify as war

service which would count towards his NHS pension, for the reasons that I have given. I regret that Dr. Dossetor has not been able to buy war service, but, of course, it is possible for him to secure the same index-linked pension by purchasing instead added years. By so doing, he can bring his potential service for pension purposes up to the maximum of 40 years. I hope that this provision, from which I think he can benefit, will soften to some extent the blow to him.
It is fair to say that Ministers and hon. Members receive a number of constituency complaints concerning the war service provisions, but, unfortunately, the rules must be applied, however we may personally sympathise with individuals and however sensitive we are. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke about the extension to teachers in 1973 she recognised that reconstructing the past in this way created great difficulties and she accepted that a certain broad-brush approach was necessary. There is simply no room for ministerial discretion in this issue, and to change the law at this stage would have wide and unacceptable repercussions. Moreover, I do not believe that my hon. Friend wants that.
I shall have another look at the matter, in the light of the information about Dr. Dossetor's terms of service during the war, to see whether there is any way in which his service in 1945 might qualify as war service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Two o'clock.